## 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

comingfrom wrote:Thank you, Daniel.

So, a dense metallic moon would conduct more charge than a hollow or porous rock (less dense) moon?
Or would it block the charge?

Not sure about conduct (this depends on structure) but in total it would have a stronger charge field (the charge field is out from the surface). It would also block more in general , ie probably hotter core and more active aurora.

You are confirming what I said while disagreeing with me.

Probably

But densities aside, look at Mathis' charge vectors at 30 degrees N and S of the equator.
They are in vector opposition to gravity there, regardless of the densities.
That means gravity aught to be weakened around the equator.
The charge coming in the poles is working in the same direction as gravity.
That means gravity aught to be strengthened near the poles.
That is opposite to the data.

You have to account for the total charge field, yes there is more charge out at the equator, but subsequently there is also more gravity (due to larger radius), remember the charge field is a compound field.

Or am I having a moment...? like when all the craters look instead like domes, and no matter what, you can't get them to look like craters again.

Paul

I think you are having a moment. I am having difficulty to explain why, but as said above i think you are missing the point that the charge field is a compound field, it is about totals, the charge field strength (and gravity) is taken at the surface of a sphere, you have to know the density for charge and radius for gravity, using those number you can calculate what happens at the surface.

Seeing surface features impact a "gravity map" should tell you that in all the field is quite balanced at the surface. I think that is actually a very good insight, it would mean that charge photons ARE linked to gravity somehow, maybe even causing it..... food for thought.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

D_Archer

Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

### Re: Miles Mathis

Thank you, Daniel.

You have to account for the total charge field, yes there is more charge out at the equator, but subsequently there is also more gravity (due to larger radius), remember the charge field is a compound field.
This was the crux of my issue with what Mathis offered.
You appear to have not understood.

In my understanding, the unified field is a compound of the charge and gravity fields.
Charge and gravity are in opposition vector (Mathis says in other papers of his, and in his diagram in this one).
The charge field is greatest at the equator (+ or - 30 degrees)
Gravity is anomalously greater at the equator (with hot spots at 30 degrees).
Mathis claims it is because of his charge field.

Following all that logically, gravity should be anomalously weaker at the equatorial region, due to the increased charge there.

I think you are having a moment. I am having difficulty to explain why, but as said above i think you are missing the point that the charge field is a compound field, it is about totals, the charge field strength (and gravity) is taken at the surface of a sphere, you have to know the density for charge and radius for gravity, using those number you can calculate what happens at the surface.
I'm confused?

The unified field is the compound field, isn't it? containing both charge and gravity.
Because charge and gravity are in vector opposition, especially at the equator (look at the arrows), charge should therefore cause a reduction in strength of the unified field, which is what NASA is measuring and calling gravity.

Seeing surface features impact a "gravity map" should tell you that in all the field is quite balanced at the surface. I think that is actually a very good insight, it would mean that charge photons ARE linked to gravity somehow, maybe even causing it..... food for thought.
Seeing your confusion has given me good confidence that I am not so confused after all.

~~~
I love Mathis and would like him to be right in all cases, but he trained me well.
He trains us to vary wary and critical of scientific papers, and shows us how to pick them apart and unwind the spin.
I apply the skills he gave me to his papers too.

For example, another thing I noticed in this same paper, he points out there are regions of less cratering. To explain this, he says the meteorites causing the impacts are attracted to the maximum charge regions. That is not bombardment. That is attraction, which Mathis doesn't believe in, since there is no mechanical explanation for attractions. Or so he says.

That little explanation of his allowed me to give the charge field the ability to attract, and now my magnets work (clears up my issue I had with his explanation there as well).
And if the charge field can attract, that would increase the gravity (really, the unified field) where the charge field is greater.

food for thought.
That's why we do this.

Who isn't hungry?
Paul

comingfrom

Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

### TUE. LIVE DISCUSSION

There are a lot of CNPS members who are interested in gravity, matter/energy, space/time and similar issues, and I'm inviting them and Miles' supporters to the following discussion.

For Tuesday at 7PM Pacific Time, 10PM Eastern, 3AM GMT (I think) I'm scheduling a one-hour etherpad discussion about everyone's theory on the subjects of Space & Gravity. I hope to plan later discussions on the subjects of Charge & Magnetism & of Matter, Mass & Energy. Suggestions are welcome for other related subjects too.

Everyone is also welcome to post brief arguments against anyone's claims (or for your own) any time you like (follow directions) at http://cnps.boards.net/thread/11/universe-debate

No registering or logging in is required in either place.

Miles' theory is one of those under discussion. The CNPS members all seem to have different theories, some of which aren't bad, it seems. I hope to have later discussions on the weekend and thereafter. You're all welcome to join in and help wake people up.
Lloyd

Posts: 4232
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Miles Mathis

Thanks Lloyd,

Looks like I'm the first user.

comingfrom

Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

### Re: Miles Mathis

CF, I'm changing the format for the discussion. Miles' theories will still be discussed, but I hope to get teams organized first.

I guess it was you who said on the etherpad:
SPACE: The medium of space is composed of photons. Otherwise know as charge, and light, and the electromagnetic spectrum. Of course there are some baryons (plasmas) in space too. That no one proposed photons in their theory surprises me.
GRAVITY: I'm leaning towards Gravity is electrostatic force, which is caused by the exchanging of photons between bodies.
MM: All modern theories of gravity are wrong because they fail to take into account that pi=4. Space is made up of pi=4 particles. John Lennon knew this, that's why he faked his death.

Where did you get that about Lennon? Miles said Lennon was with the CIA etc and didn't say anything about him knowing anything about pi=4. Did he? And Miles says pi=4 only in motion.
Lloyd

Posts: 4232
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Miles Mathis

Hi Lloyd,

I wrote the comments following SPACE: and GRAVITY: but not the comment following MM:

That is obviously a crackpot remark someone has added.
Paul

comingfrom

Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Previous