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 JeffreyW » Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:37 am

querious wrote:
oz93666 wrote: But there are also many many simplistic errors , that a well educated school boy could spot !!! In science we have to get back to experimental verification ... this will clear the smoke of many pipe dreams .

{{["A" reason, to keep this statement in context- JeffreyW]}} The only reason to read his stuff lies in the entertainment value of seeing what kind of crazy stuff someone with little knowledge of science comes up with as explanations for well known phenomena. Knid of like asking a kid why the sky is blue and forcing them to come up with something.


I think what needs to be stated in this context is the reality that nature is not layered. There is always something new to discover and learn and it sometimes does not happen in step by step fashion in a "method". How much "science" that is claimed to be understood is irrelevant in this context.

I think the real power in Mr. Mathis's arguments rests in that he does NOT need to play the credibility game, which denies the layered characteristics of scientific progress. Which he states in some of his articles. Which is why I sometimes glance over his writings. Sure, lots of errors are made, but that is where a lot of magic can happen. Sometimes a human being can cut straight to the core of the issue without playing the credibility game. It is fascinating to know that many layers of nonsense can be avoided to get to the heart of the matter.

This means that scientific progress does not necessarily need to be layered. You just don't go to school, get your A's and B's, get your degree, get your master's then your PhD, then make GREAT DISCOVERY all in a row like that. Sometimes, like in my case, you take biology, chemistry, geology, calculus, algebra, physics, etc... leave school for a little while, go back... read random articles online.. then WHAM. It hits you. A major insight absent position at any academic institution or research organization. Where's the bureaucratic institution to confirm the discovery? Where's the credibility? Who says its a major insight? Those systems are not in place! Yet, it is a real discovery!

Same with Mr. Mathis. I read all sorts of people's writings who are given the label "crank" because they might have something really important to say! I have 6 years of being on the receiving end of such ridicule regardless if I am educated. It is strange. Very strange how society works.

A major scientific discovery in physics academia is on par with the Medal of Honor in the military. Both are the highest awards in each respective society. Yet, with major scientific discoveries there does not need to be an approval process as with the Medal of Honor.

It just happens, and the confirmation of it only sometimes happens long after the discovery was made. Same with Mathis. If he makes a great discovery, there is not going to be some approval process, you just have to take it for what its worth and try to make sense of it.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby querious » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:36 pm

JeffreyW wrote:While they have huge bureaucracies and all do the same song and dance like vast country western bars doing line-dancing, he's skipping around and poking people in the eyeballs.


LOL.

Also, Miles' prodigious "output" isn't limited to science articles. He can take seemingly any event and turn it some dark conspiracy. Lincoln assassination? A red flag. The Newtown school massacre? Never happened! The parents were paid off by the CIA to say their child was killed.

But hey, I guess we should give Miles SOME credit. After all, he doesn't think the earth is flat. It's a start.

Hmmm, let's see what Mathis' latest bit of wisdom is, shall we?...

"For those who don't know, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, and Gary Player were the “Big Three” in
professional golf in the 1960s and 70s. After re-reading my paper on Tiger Woods, I looked up
Nicklaus' genealogy on a lark. Most mainstream sites refuse to tell you his mother's maiden name,
which throws up the first red flag. The genealogy sites have no information on Nicklaus, the second
red flag. With more digging we find it was Schoener, a common Jewish name. Wikipedia tells us it is
a German name, but curiously the page on that surname gives us only seven listings, none of them
convincing. Only four have pages, the others linking to nothing. The dreaded Wiki red-link to
nowhere."

...I think this kind of writing/thinking speaks for itself.
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:35 pm

.
comingfrom wrote: Now, will this be thread where we offer actual rebuttals to ideas put forth by Mathis? For I do have a couple of points of contention with him, which I would like to discuss, in a civil and scientific manner. Not sure if this is the place, or even if it is within the rules of this forum.

Airman. Miles leaves unanswered questions wherever he goes. For civil discussions, a few friends and I meet at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/ I can’t say the questions get answered; still, the cooperation is rewarding. I’ve learned to love spin stacking and atomic models there.

Here, at NI&MI, and in a Miles Mathis thread, we beg the forum for suspension of disbelief and leave to allow MM givens as a starting point for what we hope to be constructive discussion.

Please share a point or two of your contentions.
.
LongtimeAirman
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby nick c » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:14 am

comingfrom wrote:Now, will this be thread where we offer actual rebuttals to ideas put forth by Mathis? For I do have a couple of points of contention with him, which I would like to discuss, in a civil and scientific manner. Not sure if this is the place, or even if it is within the rules of this forum.
Paul,
The short answer is yes, this thread is the place for "...actual rebuttals to ideas put forth by Mathis..." and counter rebuttals.
That being said, we expect the discussion to be free of ad hominem attacks. The guideline is - attack the idea not the presenter of the idea. In addition topics that involve conspiracy theories, politics, and religion are in most cases discouraged.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby comingfrom » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:29 pm

Thank you, Nick.
Just checking because I wish to respect the rules of the forum.

Thank you, Airman.
I've registered and am reading at the forum now.
Maybe I'll post my questions there also.

I have a small catalogue of questions, but I'll start here with couple about his paper on magnetism.
HOW MAGNETISM WORKS MECHANICALLY

Mathis says
Magnetic attraction is not really attraction, it is a loss of half the repulsion, you see.
The repulsion (E/M), and attraction (gravity), between small objects are both small.
In my opinion, reducing repulsion by 50% cannot give the strength of attraction we see with permanent magnets.

Take two neodymium iron boron magnets for example, the force of their attraction is very strong when they are together. But the force of their gravity is very small.

F = Gmm/r^2

In the case of two magnets, both m are small, so the force of gravity between them is small.
If we compare to the gravity between one magnet and the earth, we now have a one very large m in the equation, making F so much greater.

But it is much harder to pull the magnets apart, than to pull one apart from the Earth (i.e. lift it up from the ground). It seems that magnets have a larger attractive force that can be accounted for by gravity.

~
Mathis says
When the two charge fields meet in fairly well-ordered straight lines, head-to-head, the photons will cancel their spins, canceling the magnetic component of the E/M field.
Fields meeting and effecting each other doesn't actually explain the forces we see on our macro objects (the magnets).

The fields meeting in the air between may effect each other, but then, what is the direct mechanical connection of the spin effected photons to the magnets, to explain the force on the magnets? How photons effect each other in midair between the magnets doesn't explain the forces we observe on the magnets.

Also, cancelling the magnetic component should return the field between the magnets to a non magnetic state, or normal ambient field, so that the magnets should then act as normal non-magnetic pieces of steel, and non-magnets don't come together with their own gravity.

~
I like Mathis' charge field theory a lot. It seems very logical to me, and he explains many things with it, which I can usually understand quite easily. But his paper on magnetism just didn't explain it for me. Am I missing something? Could you make sense of this paper?

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby querious » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:56 pm

comingfrom wrote:I have a small catalogue of questions, but I'll start here with couple about his paper on magnetism.
HOW MAGNETISM WORKS MECHANICALLY


There, Mathis writes...

"Since an object moving forward would be most likely to hit another particle at or near the forwardmost point, an object moving forward is most likely to transmit angular momentum as an orthogonal force. This is why the magnetic field is orthogonal to the electrical field. One is caused by linear motion, and the other is caused by the spin on the particle in linear motion. The forward motion of the photon causes the electrical force or field, the spin of the photon causes the magnetic force or field."

Oh my GOD. What utter BS. Not a single equation to calculate a simple magnetic force between current-carrying wires. For anyone who values clarity over obfuscation, may I recommend...

Magnetism as a Consequence of Length Contraction

You can even see the simple way magnetism relates to charge. Try to do that with Mathis' gobbledygook!
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:04 am

Thank you, Querious.

With all due respect, because your link is an interesting read, but it isn't an attempt at explaining mechanics.

Magnetism is a consequence of length contraction?
Plus signs moving in the wire cause action at a distance (on test charge), is not a mechanical explanation.
And this magnetism is caused by the length between the plus signs contracting (or the plus signs getting closer together while they move along the wire).
Right.

Sure they give us accurate equations, which were heuristically derived, and which can be used to measure forces.
But for the explanation the force is always attributed to "the field".
A mechanical explanation should say what the field contains, and how whatever it is in the field effects the force.
In papers like this we are not told what plus and minus means, and we aren't told what charge means, nor what the electric field consists of.
It is presumed we already know not to ask such questions, I suppose.
Just eat the math, because it gives the right answers, most of the time.

They don't attempt to explain the action at a distance on the charge.
There aren't really little plus signs moving in the wire.
And pluses don't really effect other pluses and minuses simply because they are pluses and minuses (because they aren't really plus and minus signs).
But something is happening to effect the test charge.

~
Then we get an explanation of radiation. Bonus.
We are told radiation is a consequence of the cosmic speed limit.

Yeah? Do stars shine because c is c?
OK, I try to read this.
Almost immediately, the explanation starts attributing cause to electric fields.
Electric fields aren't explained, so the cause in this explanation of radiation isn't really explained either.

In the first diagram we have an undefined particle, and we have vector arrows (that's an electric field), and we have a bounce (off a brick wall, which is not depicted).

If we define the particle as an electron, or ion, it probably wouldn't bounce but just get absorbed by a brick wall. It has to be at least a large dust particle, or a basketball, to bounce of a brick wall, and such particles do not radiate, unless you believe in Mathis' charge field.

If you can believe in the first diagram, you might go on to try and understand the rest, but I can't. The author highly praise these diagrams (from Purcell) but I got lost when an undefined field acted upon an undefined particle producing undefined field lines.
This is way worse than "Mathis gobbledygook"!

~
I know, you might like this kind of paper, but I see it is exactly the sort of thing Mathis is continually pointing out to us. Such as these gives us math for explanation, and misdirection for physics.

In spite of the problems I have with Mathis' paper, at least he is trying to a give a physical explanation.
In the paper you linked, they are not even trying for that, and yet this is their substitute for a physical explanation.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:34 am

comingfrom wrote:I have a small catalogue of questions, but I'll start here with couple about his paper on magnetism.
HOW MAGNETISM WORKS MECHANICALLY

Mathis says
Magnetic attraction is not really attraction, it is a loss of half the repulsion, you see.


First magnetic repulstion > Same poles you feel that the magnets push each other away, also you can feel a tip of strongest repulsion, it is always when you align the magents most, go a little bit left and you feel the repulsion going down, it also curves a bit, this was my first experience with magnets in pre-school. I always wanted to understand how this works physically. Miles provided the answer.

The molecules in the magnet are aligned (from pole to pole) and have a structure that allows them to pull the ambient charge through, they give direction to the already existing field (of charge photons, that all matter recycle). The ambient charge field is photons and anti-photons, their only difference is spin direction, with repulsion these spins add up, they collide causing the physical mechanism for repulstion.

Magnetic attraction, here photons and anti-photons meet, there spins do not add up , they do not collide but pass each other, also the magnetic poles want to suck in more from that type and thus it is like they are sucked together, because in a way they literally are. Two magnets become one longer magnet.

It is a physical explanation as far as i can tell.

Regards,
Daniel

ps. So what Mathis meant with half the repulsion is just that with for example North-North you have 2 repulsions, N-S just 1, but in reality it is 0 repulsion just two attractors.
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:21 pm

.
comingfrom wrote. I have a small catalogue of questions, but I'll start here with couple about his paper on magnetism.
HOW MAGNETISM WORKS MECHANICALLY

Mathis says
Magnetic attraction is not really attraction, it is a loss of half the repulsion, you see.

The repulsion (E/M), and attraction (gravity), between small objects are both small.
In my opinion, reducing repulsion by 50% cannot give the strength of attraction we see with permanent magnets.

But it is much harder to pull the magnets apart, than to pull one apart from the Earth (i.e. lift it up from the ground). It seems that magnets have a larger attractive force that can be accounted for by gravity.

Airman. Caveat - I’ve got my own limited interpretation of things. It’s easiest to read Miles directly. Each time I do, I see things that I didn’t see before; I’m still learning.

The following quote states the relationship between repulsion (E/M), and attraction (gravity) as accurately as possible.
Mathis. The compound field is found by subtracting the E/M field from the solo-gravity field. In large objects, the solo gravity field is stronger, since the photon is relatively smaller; in smaller objects, the E/M field is stronger, because the photon is larger relative to the object. As we get nearer the size of the photon, the E/M field gets stronger, for reasons of size alone.

Airman. A meter’s length is the rough distance at which the charge field and solo gravity are at equal strength. A fact of life, at human scale, the E/M field makes up half the strength of the total unified (E/M plus solo gravity) field. The balance of forces on our scale causes all sorts of interesting interactions, even more so when they become unbalanced as in the presence of magnets.

I see Miles has provided a direct answer to your question in the paper’s second to last paragraph.
Mathis. … My analysis of magnetism is just a beginning, and is simply a signpost to a fuller explanation. The biggest problem I currently have is explaining the great strength of magnets. It would appear at a first glance that magnets are much stronger than can be accounted for by linking magnetism to gravity. But this is answered by realizing that elements that are more magnetic will have a different initial balance with gravity than elements that are not. ... In other words, with objects of high magnetism, the charge component of the unified field is larger both absolutely and as a fraction of the total field. So stronger magnets are stacking or cancelling larger fields. It is that simple.

Notice that this also explains how magnetism can actually be stronger than gravity….

Airman. Gravity is a function of size. A permanent magnet – of that size - is created from heavier atomic elements with high mass densities which emit coherent E/M fields far stronger than the solo gravity of that magnet. In among the apparent attraction there may be a sort of charge vacuum in play. Two magnets in contact share nuclear charge channels across the contact boundary that may be analogous to a mechanical vacuum suction where the overlapping E/M fields prevent separation of the magnets.
~
Airman. I believe Daniel is describing the interacting magnetic E/M fields nicely.
.
LongtimeAirman
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:18 am

Thank you Daniel and Airman.

I notice you both employed suction, to aid your explanations of attraction. But Mathis didn't. He employed solo-gravity as the only force for the attraction.

In a way, it is great that you did, because I did the same thing, in my corrected model.
I supposed that the iron atoms produce a coherence in the field, and can also use a cohered field to propel itself along.
The iron atom works somewhat like a turbine, that will propel itself in a spin cohered field.

I keep remembering, iron is attracted to both poles of a magnet, and only between magnets we have repulsion and attraction. To explain this I imagine that the randomly aligned atoms in a piece of iron probably have a certain degree of movement within the lattice structure, and upon meeting a magnetic field, the atoms which can align to it will, and those atoms aligned against the field deflect away from it, so there are always more atoms aligned with the field than against it, causing the attraction. The whole piece of steel might even rotate a bit as it is being attracted, until it has the maximum number of atoms aligned to the field.
In a permanent magnet the atoms' alignments are more fixed, so when like pole meets like pole, the iron atoms are aligned against the field and so we see the repulsion. And maybe I should be saying, aligned with (or against) the field spins, because I believe spins are involved.

To Airman's comments.
I still have a problem conceiving the E/M = gravity for 1m sized objects. It seems to mean accepting sideways gravity within the earth's gravity field, and a gravity greater than that of the Earth, between small sized objects, as small strong magnets suggest (if their attraction is due solely to their gravity, when they cancel each other's E/M).

I missed Miles' provided direct answer before, and I now see it is because a statement in that paragraph flies over my head.
Mathis. But this is answered by realizing that elements that are more magnetic will have a different initial balance with gravity than elements that are not.
What does this mean? And how does it effect?

I confess, I don't realize that.
I don't know what he means.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:57 pm

.
comingfrom wrote. Thank you Daniel and Airman.

I notice you both employed suction, to aid your explanations of attraction. But Mathis didn't. He employed solo-gravity as the only force for the attraction.

Airman. I'll quote Mathis first.
Magnetism and gravity are two completely different things, fundamentally, but magnetism works by either driving the E/M field out of a small area of space between the magnets, allowing only gravity to remain, or by augmenting the angular part of the E/M field, creating a greater repulsion than before.

Magnetism occurs as the E/M field between magnets is either augmented or diminished. When the E/M field is dimished, gravity remains. Gravity provides impetus to motion. I believe Miles talks a bit about ambient and a cross current charge flow between the magnets as additional considerations. Strong ambient fiends may change the magnets’ acceleration compared to gravity alone. I see no problem describing a diminished E/M region as a lowered charge pressure, suction is a relative term.

comingfrom wrote. In a way, it is great that you did, because I did the same thing, in my corrected model.
I supposed that the iron atoms produce a coherence in the field, and can also use a cohered field to propel itself along.
The iron atom works somewhat like a turbine, that will propel itself in a spin cohered field.

Airman. I’m not aware of your model. Self-propelled Iron turbines sounds steampunk crazy, no insult intended.

comingfrom wrote. I keep remembering, iron is attracted to both poles of a magnet, and only between magnets we have repulsion and attraction. To explain this I imagine that the randomly aligned atoms in a piece of iron probably have a certain degree of movement within the lattice structure, and upon meeting a magnetic field, the atoms which can align to it will, and those atoms aligned against the field deflect away from it, so there are always more atoms aligned with the field than against it, causing the attraction. The whole piece of steel might even rotate a bit as it is being attracted, until it has the maximum number of atoms aligned to the field.

Airman. By definition, I don’t believe (iron) atoms within solid molecular configurations can change their orientations. If iron atoms could reorient themselves, the iron within E/M transformers could reorient every time the circuit is switched. Or an AC circuit, reorienting itself 60 times a second; or high frequency transformers? Sorry, I don’t see it. All iron atoms are sharing nuclear charge channels with great efficiency in any orientation.
I disagree with atoms reorienting with or against the field sounds wrong and confusing. A net attraction between the magnets may be a true statement, but it’s also confusing. The two magnets work by interacting E/M fields. Attraction begins with E/M spin cancellations.


comingfrom wrote. In a permanent magnet the atoms' alignments are more fixed, so when like pole meets like pole, the iron atoms are aligned against the field and so we see the repulsion. And maybe I should be saying, aligned with (or against) the field spins, because I believe spins are involved.

Airman. Sorry I don’t see any solid atoms spinning, even though their constituent electrons, neutrons and protons are indeed spinning. I believe the nuclear charge flows spin in helical paths between atomic particles, but I haven’t seen that in Miles’ writing.

comingfrom wrote.
I still have a problem conceiving the E/M = gravity for 1m sized objects. It seems to mean accepting sideways gravity within the earth's gravity field, and a gravity greater than that of the Earth, between small sized objects, as small strong magnets suggest (if their attraction is due solely to their gravity, when they cancel each other's E/M).

I missed Miles' provided direct answer before, and I now see it is because a statement in that paragraph flies over my head.

Mathis. But this is answered by realizing that elements that are more magnetic will have a different initial balance with gravity than elements that are not.


What does this mean? And how does it effect?


Airman. While matter is expanding, all E/M fields are repulsive. The 1m object is average density. The atomic matter of the magnet is probably denser than the average Earth density. We could probably observe weak magnetic field interactions easily enough in space, here on Earth, the planet’s unified field swamps all our individual local fields.

The magnet’s gravity is fixed by the magnet’s dimensions. We can make changes that can greatly increase the strength of the magnet’s E/M field. An object’s balance may refer to ratio of coherent emission vs. solo gravity.

Thanks for the dialog. At times it seems all I have are best guesses. I’ve communicated with Miles briefly a few times; I don’t believe I’ve ever asked him to answer any specific questions, nevertheless, he answered well and freely. Please feel free to post your questions or ask Miles directly.

.
LongtimeAirman
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:04 am

Thank you, Airman.

Magnetism occurs as the E/M field between magnets is either augmented or diminished. When the E/M field is dimished, gravity remains. Gravity provides impetus to motion. I believe Miles talks a bit about ambient and a cross current charge flow between the magnets as additional considerations. Strong ambient fiends may change the magnets’ acceleration compared to gravity alone. I see no problem describing a diminished E/M region as a lowered charge pressure, suction is a relative term.
But as I read it, the E/M field isn't diminished, only the spins (the magnetism) have been cancelled.
By your own pressure concept, even if the E/M field between the magnets was eliminated, the ambient field would have rushed in at the speed of light to replace it. Wouldn't it?

Airman. I’m not aware of your model. Self-propelled Iron turbines sounds steampunk crazy, no insult intended.
No offense taken. Turbines suck better than gravity. :P But seriously, even a single proton acts as a turbine, cycling and recycling charge. I was looking at the animations of a photon spun up (at the forum you linked above), and could see the "turbine blades" (shape) formed by the photon path. If put on an outer axial spin, then those turbine blades are spinning around, enabling it to suck non spun up photons in through its poles.

I imagine there is something in the arrangement of protons in iron atoms (and other magnetic elements) that coheres the spins on the photons they recycle.

I have to credit my son for this model, because he visualized and predicted the motions of a spun up photon.
And credit to you for introducing me to the forum, where there are animations that confirmed my son's prediction.

Turbo protons and electrons may also explain the way they move in electric fields, rather than the simple direct bombardment model, which would send both in same direction. But we know they go in opposite directions. The electron's spins causes it to processes charge photons oppositely to how protons do, whereby they propel themselves in opposite directions in the field.

Airman. By definition, I don’t believe (iron) atoms within solid molecular configurations can change their orientations. If iron atoms could reorient themselves, the iron within E/M transformers could reorient every time the circuit is switched. Or an AC circuit, reorienting itself 60 times a second; or high frequency transformers? Sorry, I don’t see it. All iron atoms are sharing nuclear charge channels with great efficiency in any orientation.
I disagree with atoms reorienting with or against the field sounds wrong and confusing. A net attraction between the magnets may be a true statement, but it’s also confusing. The two magnets work by interacting E/M fields. Attraction begins with E/M spin cancellations.
Magnets can and do lose their magnetism, meaning they lose the neat alignments of their atoms. Especially if you over heat them.
On the other hand, if you play a magnet over a plain old nail long enough, it will become a semi-permanent magnet, meaning you have aligned the atoms in the nail.

These two facts lead me to believe that the atoms do have at least some degree of movement. In my model, it only has to be a small amount to enable iron to be attracted regardless of the pole.

Airman. Sorry I don’t see any solid atoms spinning, even though their constituent electrons, neutrons and protons are indeed spinning. I believe the nuclear charge flows spin in helical paths between atomic particles, but I haven’t seen that in Miles’ writing.
Don't be sorry. I apologize for not making myself clear enough. I was referring to the spins on the photons in the field. The same spins Mathis says are cancelling, or stacking.

I agree with you, I don't think the atoms aren't spinning.

Airman. While matter is expanding, all E/M fields are repulsive. The 1m object is average density. The atomic matter of the magnet is probably denser than the average Earth density. We could probably observe weak magnetic field interactions easily enough in space, here on Earth, the planet’s unified field swamps all our individual local fields.

The magnet’s gravity is fixed by the magnet’s dimensions. We can make changes that can greatly increase the strength of the magnet’s E/M field. An object’s balance may refer to ratio of coherent emission vs. solo gravity.
I do get what you are saying here, but you are just repeating what I am contending.

And you offer me another way to describe my problem.

You say, "The magnet's gravity is fixed by the magnet's dimensions."
Mathis attributes gravity to the radius alone, and E/M to the density.
The magnet's radius is minuscule compared to the Earth's radius, so the gravity will be also.
My one centimeter diameter magnet should not be able to pick up and hold even a small ball bearing against the earth's gravity, if it were only using it's solo-gravity, but we know it overpowers Earth's gravity easily.

Thanks for the dialog. At times it seems all I have are best guesses.
I do appreciate it. I'm grateful to have someone to discuss Mathis with.

I’ve communicated with Miles briefly a few times; I don’t believe I’ve ever asked him to answer any specific questions, nevertheless, he answered well and freely. Please feel free to post your questions or ask Miles directly.
Thank you, and I probably will. But I want to at least try for a while before I do. I want to make sure I don't waste his time (and embarrass myself) with silly questions because I overlooked something simple.

Like you and Daniel are answering me, and I am still not getting it. I feel I am overlooking something obvious.
Are you able to explain "initial balance (of elements) with gravity" for me? Or point to the paper where Mathis explains.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:02 pm

.
comingfrom wrote.
But as I read it, the E/M field isn't diminished, only the spins (the magnetism) have been cancelled.
By your own pressure concept, even if the E/M field between the magnets was eliminated, the ambient field would have rushed in at the speed of light to replace it. Wouldn't it?

Airman. My pressure concept, how embarrassing. I definitely need to understand things better. Thanks for the attention and help.

Electric resistance is easy, the magnet receives constant linear bombardment by the opposing electric field, that’s 1. Magnetic resistance depends on the coherency and alignment of the opposing magnetic field. Two spin fields meet, they annihilate or not, that’s 0 or 1. The total E/M repulsion felt by that magnet can then be either 1 or 2. As Miles describes we then include the solo gravity at 1.5. An oversimplified case, we get a magnet that appears to attract or repel at 0.5.

The field is full of random photons and antiphotons. When top level spins are stripped, the E/M field between the magnets is diminished. Diminishment doesn’t correspond to the absence of photons. There’s no such thing as a photon vaccum, no force can turn photons. Photons can only interact through collisions; magnetism concerns the spin components of the collisions.

comingfrom wrote.
Turbo protons and electrons may also explain the way they move in electric fields, rather than the simple direct bombardment model, which would send both in same direction. But we know they go in opposite directions. The electron's spins causes it to processes charge photons oppositely to how protons do, whereby they propel themselves in opposite directions in the field.

Airman. Will they follow magnetic field lines? Everything depends on collisions. It’s hard to distinguish exactly what kind of collisions/velocities you’re talking about. Please make a simple diagram.

comingfrom wrote.
Magnets can and do lose their magnetism, meaning they lose the neat alignments of their atoms. Especially if you over heat them.
On the other hand, if you play a magnet over a plain old nail long enough, it will become a semi-permanent magnet, meaning you have aligned the atoms in the nail.

These two facts lead me to believe that the atoms do have at least some degree of movement. In my model, it only has to be a small amount to enable iron to be attracted regardless of the pole.

Airman. Gaining or losing magnetism (through heat or contact with a permanent magnet) doesn’t necessarily imply reorienting atoms. If magnetic solids such as iron were so malleable, I would think they would quickly disintegrate. Imo, stroking a nail with a magnet changes the aggregate photon charge channel flow paths through the nail, not the physical positions of the atoms.

comingfrom wrote.
You say, "The magnet's gravity is fixed by the magnet's dimensions."
Mathis attributes gravity to the radius alone, and E/M to the density.
The magnet's radius is minuscule compared to the Earth's radius, so the gravity will be also.
My one centimeter diameter magnet should not be able to pick up and hold even a small ball bearing against the earth's gravity, if it were only using it's solo-gravity, but we know it overpowers Earth's gravity easily.

Airman. I’m not sure if you are satisfied with argument for or against. Solo gravity just causes an acceleration. I don’t believe magnets are held together by solo gravity, instead, the charge channels of the two magnets are joined.

comingfrom wrote.
Are you able to explain "initial balance (of elements) with gravity" for me? Or point to the paper where Mathis explains.

Airman. Start by re-reading the offending passage. Note that:

1. First three of 5 instances of “element”. Page 4, end of first and beginning of second paragraphs.
Miles wrote. The nucleus is channeling charge, and with certain elements the nuclear poles align, creating magnetic conduction. See my recent paper on Iron for more on this. http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf Period Four of the Periodic Table

2. Final two of 5 instances of “element” occur in Miles’ quote “explaining the great strength of magnets”, the paper’s 2nd to last paragraph, which we've previously talked about. After that quote, before listing several recommended follow-up papers, Miles concludes with this:
Miles wrote. You may now consult my newer paper on magnetism, http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf Period Four of the Periodic Table. I show how it is mechanically created in the nucleus, with full diagrams and explanations.

Miles gives you two recommendations for: Period Four of the periodic table. http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
.
LongtimeAirman
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:43 am

Thank you, Airman.

Electric resistance is easy, the magnet receives constant linear bombardment by the opposing electric field, that’s 1. Magnetic resistance depends on the coherency and alignment of the opposing magnetic field. Two spin fields meet, they annihilate or not, that’s 0 or 1. The total E/M repulsion felt by that magnet can then be either 1 or 2. As Miles describes we then include the solo gravity at 1.5. An oversimplified case, we get a magnet that appears to attract or repel at 0.5.

The field is full of random photons and antiphotons. When top level spins are stripped, the E/M field between the magnets is diminished. Diminishment doesn’t correspond to the absence of photons. There’s no such thing as a photon vaccum, no force can turn photons. Photons can only interact through collisions; magnetism concerns the spin components of the collisions.
I had to read this several times to understand what you are doing here.

E/M is photons. The photons are not diminished, on this we agree.
The spins are cancelled (for attraction) and stacked (for repulsion), and the cancelling or adding of the spin component, you are simply adding or subtracting to the linear component of field.

In my mind, removing the orthogonal vector (the spins) from the field still leaves the linear vector.

Will they follow magnetic field lines?
The field lines are the direction of force in the field, and yes, they follow the direction of forces in the field.

Everything depends on collisions. It’s hard to distinguish exactly what kind of collisions/velocities you’re talking about.
I'm talking about inside of electrons and protons, when the photons which are being cycled collide with the spun up photon that is the electron or proton. Or maybe they only collide with the photons which are being recycled.

The exact details of how energy is transmitted from photon field to baryon, and vica versa, isn't yet clear in my mind.
Since the baryons are recycling photons, I don't see the acceleration of particles in a field as being caused by simple straight bombardment. Though I believe there is collision contact, for energy to be transferred.

I believe the rotation of celestial bodies is maintained by the photon field, and that the energy transfer is happening inside the atoms of the suns and planets.

Please make a simple diagram.
Rather than make one, I'll find and "official" one that shows what I am speaking about.
Image
source: Particle Drifts in Space

Airman. Gaining or losing magnetism (through heat or contact with a permanent magnet) doesn’t necessarily imply reorienting atoms. If magnetic solids such as iron were so malleable, I would think they would quickly disintegrate. Imo, stroking a nail with a magnet changes the aggregate photon charge channel flow paths through the nail, not the physical positions of the atoms.
You are saying there is a total amount of magnetic charge held in store, in a magnet.

I'm open to that for an explanation.
But it leads me to this question: Why don't electromagnets stay magnetic when the charge is switched off?

And can you explain why iron is attracted to both poles of a magnet?

Airman. I’m not sure if you are satisfied with argument for or against. Solo gravity just causes an acceleration. I don’t believe magnets are held together by solo gravity, instead, the charge channels of the two magnets are joined
You are trying to make an argument for solo-gravity being the force of attraction between magnets, but you don't believe it?

You must mean, once the magnets are in contact, then the charge channeling takes over and gravity between the magnets disappears (because the magnets have become one body). Yes?

Miles gives you two recommendations for: Period Four of the periodic table. http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf.
I have read it, and I have just gone and read it again.

I actually like the explanation there, it seems to be a good explanation of why the magnetic elements are magnetic, and of how the magnet field is produced.

It doesn't explain for me why these elements process a magnetic field differently to the ambient field.
It is the magnetic elements' response to magnetic fields that is left out of the explanation, imo.
Gravity is given for the explanation why magnets come together, but these elements will respond to magnetic fields when in a plasma too.

Once again, thank you.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:21 am

Found an interesting related page.
While it isn't a mechanical explanation it gives measured magnetic moments etc.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron