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

new math by Miles Mathis

Unread postby jjohnson » Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:09 pm

For those who haven't enjoyed Miles's direct, easy to understand and outside the box corrections to the old equations in common use today, including the subjects of black holes, the gravitational constant, expanding universe and all sort of things to do with what we are trying to develop to improve the state of the art in physics and its associated math, browse his logical, concise papers and dry wit at http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html

"Mikey likes it!!"

This links you to a paper of interest whose purpose is to unify gravity and elecromagnetism. ALL his papers are good; this one seems particularly relevant to the effects we are trying to get physicists and cosmologists to react to and understand and explore. You can link back to his home page from this, or by deleting the "uft2.html" suffix after the address.

Jim
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: new math by Miles Mathis

Unread postby StevenO » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:26 am

I'm a great fan of Miles. He is not into esoterics, his style is easy to read and all his articles are to the point. Unfortunately, most physicists and mathematicians will hate him since he exposes that they might look good at "higher math", but desperately fail on the high school level basic stuff, exposing them for the "smoke and mirror" artists they are since basic mistakes have gone uncorrected for tens or hundreds of years. It think it will take at least one new generation before his idea's will get some traction in the mainstream, but history will show what's right in the end.

Main points from Miles' Unified Field theory is that there are two basic and opposite fields:

1) the gravitation/inertial field from expansion of matter and
2) a repulsive photon emission field from that same matter.

The base photon field mediates all forces outside the ones described by Newton. It is the discovery of this real repulsive base field, which has been ignored by mainstream (or labelled 'virtual') that provides credence to the EU paradigms. Open discussion would IMHO still be where photons and the expansion of matter originate from but that almost belongs into the metaphysical realm.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:34 am

Steven O has brought our attention to the work of Miles Mathis, I thought it would be important to at least have his top ten list of discoveries, so we can take a proper educated example from this mindset when we consider the universe at large and the EU in particular.

I like knowing more then one way to skin the cat.

This is my latest.
Thanks Steven and Miles.
Dean aka JL
1) I show that you can’t assign a cardinal number to a point, which begins the revolution in both physics and mathematics. The point and the instant are jettisoned from physics, and all math and science since Euclid must be redefined.

2) In my Unified Field Theory, using Newton's gravitational equation as a compound equation, I separate out the foundational E/M field and then reunify, including Relativity transforms. In a related paper, I show that G acts as a transform between these two fields. In another related paper I show that this foundational E/M field is emitted by the central wall in the double slit experiment, creating the interference pattern before a single photon moves through the apparatus.

3) Superposition is explained mechanically and visually, in a rather simple manner. Using the gyroscope, I physically create x and y spins and draw the physical waves created. This explains the wave motion, it dispels many statistical mysteries, and it falsifies the Copenhagen interpretation. Using this same spin model, I am able to show the make-up of all fundamental particles, including the electron and proton, without quarks. I am able to unify the electron, proton, neutron, and all mesons, by developing a simple spin equation. With four stacked spins I can produce all known particles and effects.

4) I correct all the numbers involved in the perihelion precession of Mercury, proving that Einstein's analysis was very incomplete.

5) Calculus is redefined on the finite differential, which will revolutionize the teaching of calculus as well as QED and Relativity. In fact, the fields of all higher math must be redefined. This discovery ultimately bypasses renormalization, making it unnecessary.

6) I show that many of Newton’s important lemmae are false, including his basic trig lemmae. His proof of a = v2/r is compromised by this, which forces us to re-analyze circular motion. The mechanics of his orbit also falls, which requires us to hypothesize a third motion to stabilize the orbit in real time. I have shown that this motion must be caused by the E/M field. This also applies to Kepler’s ellipse. And it explains the mechanics of tides.

7) I also redrew the line between tangential velocity and orbital velocity, showing that the orbital velocity must be an acceleration. This requires a rewriting of many basic equations and cleans up many errors and mysteries, including a few of those in renormalization.

8) I solved the problem of relativity, finding the simple and basic algebraic errors at their inception. I offered corrected transforms for time, length, velocity, mass, and momentum. I exploded the twin paradox, and did so by showing incontrovertibly that relative motion toward causes time contraction, not dilation. I solved the Pioneer Anomaly. I also proved that Newton's kinetic energy equation is not an approximation; it is an exact equation. I explain the cause of the mass limit for the proton in accelerator.

9) I show the error in the interferometer and light clock diagrams, proving that no fringe effect should have been expected. The light clock creates the same mathematical triangle and falls to the same argument.

10) Minkowski's four-vector field is shown to be false, not only because it uses Einstein's false postulates and axioms, but because its own new axiom—that time may travel orthogonally to x,y,z—is also false.

10a) I prove that General Relativity is falsely grounded on the same misunderstandings as the calculus, which is one reason it can’t be joined to QED. I prove that curved space is an unnecessary abstraction and that the tensor calculus is a mathematical diversion, a hiding in esoterica. I prove this by expressing the field with simple algebra, taking five equations to do what Einstein did in 44 pages.

10b) As a bonus, I prove that String Theory is an historical embarrassment.
http://milesmathis.com/central.html

Last edited by junglelord on Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby Total Science » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:37 am

Non-Euclidean geometry is a sick joke and contains a theorem which demonstrates itself to be a joke.

It's called Lobachevsky Theorem 20 which proves mathematically that Non-Euclidean geometry is false.

"Theorem 20: If in any triangle the sum of the three angles is equal to two right angles, so is this the case for every other triangle." -- Nikolai I. Lobachevsky, mathematician, 1840
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby Corpuscles » Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:47 pm

WOW! simply WOW! Brilliant!

Crystal clear logic, elegant simple prose explainations, supported by beautifully explained mathematics, with the bravado to tackle physics giants!...and cheek to throw in some juicy "wacky"!

I must devour it all , then regurgitate several times, before asking questions of you masters...if I may later?

Sheesh! his electron model :o .... Miles should ask for a billion dollar "Artists donation" from CERN... he will likely save them a lot more than that! :D
Corpuscles
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:47 am

Total Science wrote:Non-Euclidean geometry is a sick joke and contains a theorem which demonstrates itself to be a joke.

It's called Lobachevsky Theorem 20 which proves mathematically that Non-Euclidean geometry is false.

"Theorem 20: If in any triangle the sum of the three angles is equal to two right angles, so is this the case for every other triangle." -- Nikolai I. Lobachevsky, mathematician, 1840


So I guess the question, now, is whether there is any actual object that has a 90 degree right angle.

In fact it is impossible to "prove" this through an experiment. You measure 90.00000 degrees, but it's actually 90.0000001. You measure 90.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 degrees, but it's actually 90.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degrees.

This is why geometry is a discipline which studies objects that do not exist, idealized objects like squares and triangles are not found anywhere in reality. However there are objects that are "close enough", so we retain the concepts of squares and triangles for convenience.

All Lob's theory is saying is that, if there is an object A whose angles add up to the angles of two other objects B, then every other A will also share this characteristic. If A's angles do not, then every other A's angles will not.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby StevenO » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:01 pm

altonhare wrote:So I guess the question, now, is whether there is any actual object that has a 90 degree right angle.

In fact it is impossible to "prove" this through an experiment. You measure 90.00000 degrees, but it's actually 90.0000001. You measure 90.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 degrees, but it's actually 90.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degrees.

It looks like you are making a classical mistake here Alton. In physics we measure differences and they are only as accurate as the units of the ruler. If your ruler has 1 degree units, a 90 deg measurement will say the angle is in the 89-90 degree interval and that's all. There is no mathematical "actual" which is more true than the physical result, there is only the result of the measurement. This is what is explained by Miles in item 1.

altonhare wrote:This is why geometry is a discipline which studies objects that do not exist, idealized objects like squares and triangles are not found anywhere in reality. However there are objects that are "close enough", so we retain the concepts of squares and triangles for convenience.

Exactly. We should always be aware of the difference between math and the real thing. For instance that the physical "point" always has extension. A "point" on a curve has at least a two dimensional extension, while math assumes a point with zero dimensions, which is a physical impossibility.

altonhare wrote:All Lob's theory is saying is that, if there is an object A whose angles add up to the angles of two other objects B, then every other A will also share this characteristic. If A's angles do not, then every other A's angles will not.

I think it is sufficient to know that space as we know it has three degrees of freedom.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby Corpuscles » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:47 pm

StevenO (and any others)

If you have some time to educate?, one that is nowhere near your level of expertise, I have some questions.

1.My favourite quote so far:

"Mesons are these same baryons stripped of outer spins. This unifies all hadrons. In this paper, I will show that the electron is also this same baryon stripped of outer spins. In this way, I will prove that electrons, mesons, neutrons and protons are all the same fundamental particle."

http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html

The math concept is brilliant but I do not know how he gets the 4, 8 spins?

especially given this???:

Imagine the Earth spinning about its axis. Call that axis the x-axis. Now go to the y-axis, which also goes through the center but is at a 90o angle from the x-axis. Try to imagine spinning the Earth around that axis at the same time that it is spinning around the x-axis. If you can imagine it, then you have a very vivid imagination, to say the least.
http://milesmathis.com/super.html

I am an expert at either.... but a Baseball "pitcher" and a Cricket "spin bowler"know how to impart both x & y spins similataneously as per the animations shown in this page (refered to me by JL elsewhere)

http://treeincarnation.com/articles/Spin-of-Space.htm

2. I really have enjoyed Miles' section on relativity. He really deals with the issue of a non existent "space time" fabric with physical properties as is inferred in GR. He reduces it back to the fundamentals of time dilation and Lorenz transforms
BUT

a. sits on the fence regarding the aether :cry:

b. Creates a reverse gravity ie the opposite way (OK I can buy that !)

BUT BUT BUT THEN!

Then talks about expanding matter(planets suns everything) !!!! :o creating his "3rd wave" gravity

Could you explain HOW you can accept such a seeming 'flakey' unsupported hypothesis?

Have you any hints on making it .....make more sense?

I admire his obvious intellect and style but that just seems crazy!
Corpuscles
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby StevenO » Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:38 am

Corpuscles wrote: StevenO (and any others)

If you have some time to educate?, one that is nowhere near your level of expertise, I have some questions.

1.My favourite quote so far:

"Mesons are these same baryons stripped of outer spins. This unifies all hadrons. In this paper, I will show that the electron is also this same baryon stripped of outer spins. In this way, I will prove that electrons, mesons, neutrons and protons are all the same fundamental particle."

http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html

The math concept is brilliant but I do not know how he gets the 4, 8 spins?

especially given this???:

Imagine the Earth spinning about its axis. Call that axis the x-axis. Now go to the y-axis, which also goes through the center but is at a 90o angle from the x-axis. Try to imagine spinning the Earth around that axis at the same time that it is spinning around the x-axis. If you can imagine it, then you have a very vivid imagination, to say the least.
http://milesmathis.com/super.html

I am an expert at either.... but a Baseball "pitcher" and a Cricket "spin bowler"know how to impart both x & y spins similataneously as per the animations shown in this page (refered to me by JL elsewhere)

http://treeincarnation.com/articles/Spin-of-Space.htm

Hi Corpuscules,

The x,y,z spins of the heavier particles can best be described by end-to-end or "head-to-tail" spins of the rotational axis, comparable to how you can precess a gyroscope. You can do that up to three dimensions.
Image
Now imagine that with one particle, the higher spin layers scale with a factor 2 in size, that is how you get the relative spins with size 1,2,4 and 8.

Corpuscles wrote:2. I really have enjoyed Miles' section on relativity. He really deals with the issue of a non existent "space time" fabric with physical properties as is inferred in GR. He reduces it back to the fundamentals of time dilation and Lorenz transforms
BUT

a. sits on the fence regarding the aether :cry:

b. Creates a reverse gravity ie the opposite way (OK I can buy that !)

BUT BUT BUT THEN!

Then talks about expanding matter(planets suns everything) !!!! :o creating his "3rd wave" gravity

Could you explain HOW you can accept such a seeming 'flakey' unsupported hypothesis?

Have you any hints on making it .....make more sense?

I admire his obvious intellect and style but that just seems crazy!

Miles is kind of neutral wrt. to the aether. He says you can explain the Unified Field with or an aether concept. However I think he leans towards no aether, like Einstein, since that would be the simplest description (everything relative).

Everything is relative. To explain the acceleration of gravity as you measure with an accelerometer one can either assume that space is compressing into mass as Einstein proposed or that matter expands as Miles holds. The case of Miles leads to about 100x simpler math. Size is also relative, so why would expanding matter be a problem? Conceptually it is'nt. It is just that your eyes scale everything to the size of photons which also expand at the same rate.

Expanding matter is also the easiest explanation for inertia. Matter just "pushes" back intrinsically.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby Corpuscles » Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:28 pm

Thank you Steven O.

I don't know why JL posted thread? Hopefully not to cause you to have to defend Miles (but I am glad for exposure it gave.I still think he is as interesting as he is brilliant.)

I suspected that sort of spin (which you described) in conjunction with his end over end tumbling.I wish he had gone further and explained different wavelength spectrums of EM and provided agreeable calculations for the whole range.

Miles goes to so much trouble to prove the constant of C ! I really enjoyed his explanation ... of any observer only can see C at 90deg so therefore must always be local and observe a constant C. BUT his expansion theory means that means C also must be expanding,if a metre is actually a larger metre than it was some time previously. I don't buy the theory at all!

(If father and son are exactly the same height does that mean the son is relatively taller due tofather having moretime to"expand" :lol: )

Miles paper on the Great Pyramid is most interesting even if it is almost in the realm of the metaphysical, but he already has a known established electrical charge gradient between solid earth and the ionosphere, therefore the expansion" therory is likely moot and irrelevant.... and IMHO very WRONG! :oops:
Corpuscles
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby StevenO » Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:29 pm

If we accept that e.g. time and phase are relative, electric potential, position and velocity are relative, why is it so hard to accept that acceleration and size are relative too? ;)

And that metre is not a larger metre than it was before, that's only if you could measure it from that place where you were before. Heck, even lightspeed could be assigned to expansion of matter instead of movement of photons. It's all relative...
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:53 am

* I read Mathis's papers correcting Calculus and Differentiation before, but I see now that he has a lot of good stuff on many aspects of physics etc. He may be the most lucid writer I've read. I'm glad someone else mentioned some of his stuff on another thread. I'd like to devote this thread to all of his major findings and ideas. I expect to submit some excerpts soon. In the mean time I welcome anyone else to discuss his findings and ideas here as well. Here's the main science part of his website: http://milesmathis.com/index.html. His stuff is all available for free to read, but he accepts donations to help him out. And I don't know of anyone more deserving of such an investment.
Last edited by Lloyd on Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:01 am

* Here are major excerpts from his paper: The Electron Orbit at http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html.
Given particles that are rushing around with opposite charges, we would expect a large number of direct collisions. … The electron is not only on an intersecting path, it is attracted very strongly to the proton. Why does it not hit it?
... The photoelectric effect works both ways: if the photon acts like a particle, the electron must, also. Both the photon and the electron must not only have a discrete energy, they must have discrete positions, otherwise the data would not work like it does. Once again the standard model tries to fudge over this fact with probabilities, but a mechanical explanation requires that both the incoming and outgoing particles must have real position at impact.
... I have shown in a series of papers that if we make the charge force mechanical, we must get rid of the messenger or virtual photon that is now said to mediate it. We must replace that virtual photon with a real photon, and give it mass equivalence. Moreover, we must make all force repulsive. There is simply no way to explain attraction mechanically, so we give up on attraction, at the foundational level. Underlying both electricity and magnetism, we have the charge field, or what I now call the foundational E/M field. Although electricity may be either positive or negative, the foundational E/M field is always positive. It is always repulsive. This means that all protons and electrons are emitting real photons, and that all protons and electrons are repulsing all other protons and electrons, via simple bombardment. Attraction is explained by noticing that protons repulse electrons much less than they repulse other protons. In this way, the attraction is a relative attraction. Relative to the speed of repulsion of protons with one another, electrons appear to move backwards. If protons are defined as the baseline, then electrons are negative to this baseline.
... Classically, this can be explained by the size difference alone. Due only to surface area considerations, electrons are able to dodge much of the emission of protons and nuclei, and so they seem to swim upstream.
... I think it is much preferable, from a theoretical viewpoint, to talk of discrete particles.
... This explains our current problem in a very direct manner, since the orbital distance or shell or level that the electron ultimately reaches is determined by the distance at which the electron is no longer able to dodge the emission of the proton. If we think of the electron and proton as spheres, it makes this very easy to see. The proton is emitting at a constant rate, we assume. But due to spherical considerations, the emission field must dissipate with greater distance from the center. Which is the same as saying that it [the emission of photons] gets denser the closer you get to the proton. The electron simply continues to fall nearer the proton, until the field density of emitted photons gets great enough to stop it. At this point, a level of equilibrium is reached. The proton has always been repulsing the electron, but now the electron gets close enough that the proton can stop it from coming nearer. At greater distances, the field density of photons was not enough to stop the electron, but now it is great enough. It is that simple.
... We can propose a simple bombarding field like this [of emitted photons] and use it to explain protons repelling and also to explain electrons coming close to the protons. One of the great benefits of this new theory is that it explains all at once why the electron does not fall into the proton. It does not collide because it was never attracted to the proton or the nucleus in the first place. Its distance of exclusion is simply much less, based on its size.

* I agree that a force of attraction seems to make no sense, which is the main problem I have with Thornhill's theory of subtrons and the neutrino sea. Most of his theory makes a lot of sense, but the idea of a pulling force on particles to make them orbit, seems to need a lot of rethinking.
* Something I don't understand about Mathis's subatomic particles theory is what would make them emit photons constantly in all directions. What seems more sensible to me is that the particles, i.e. electrons, protons and neutrons, could vibrate in a sea of aether particles and the vibrations make spherical compression and decompression waves in the aether particles. Light then would be the aether particles vibrating, just like sound is air, liquid, or solid molecules vibrating.
* Here's how I mean.
Image
* The dots can represent air etc molecules whose vibrations back and forth produce sound. Or they can represent aether particles whose much faster vibrations produce light. The dark rings are where the particles are compressed together and between those rings the particles are farther apart than normal.
* I've been wondering if it's possible for the back and forth vibrations to make alternating current. The second animation at this post shows the vibrations better: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2561#p27900.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:19 pm

Good call to start a NIAMI thread for Miles, Lloyd.

..but I see now that he has a lot of good stuff on many aspects of physics etc. He may be the most lucid writer I've read.


Agreed. Until.. (I was going to post this in the upper board, but now you have initiated this thread, I'll leave that decision to the mods.

Instead, the Sun is both a huge fusion reactor and a huge recycler of the charge field. In fact, it requires this recycling of the charge field in order to feed the fusion process.


Oh no, not fusion again. Maybe Miles should be in the NIAMI boards until further opinions are forthcoming? ;-)
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby altonhare » Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:08 pm

I have identified an error in Mr. Mathis' analysis of the Michelson-Morley interferometer. I have read and reread, visualized and revisualized, calculated and recalculated. Mr. Mathis is wrong to assert that, given an underlying passive stationary aether which light propagates at constant speed wrt, the MMI would not have obtained a positive result.

Given the stationary passive aether hypothesis of the time, the interferometer should have returned a fringe effect.

For those who have difficulty visualizing it or understanding it, the hands-down best way to convince yourself is to take out a sheet of graph paper. Draw 2 perpendicular lines each 4 box-lengths long intersecting in the middle. On the leftmost side of the horizontal line put a dot to signify the release of a pulse of light. Now redraw the 2 perpendicular lines directly under the first one, but half a box length to the right. On this diagram draw the dot moved exactly one box length over from where it was. Continue redrawing the diagram with the dots always displaced by 1 box length from their previous position, and with the perpendicular lines always displaced by 1/2 box length from its previous position. This corresponds to a situation in which the interferometer is moving at c/2 "through the aether".

If you do it correctly you will confirm that the "vertical" pulse returns to the center well ahead of the horizontal pulse. In fact, to be precise, it arrives 0.881 units of time ahead. If the wavelength is .01*c the actual "phase shift" or "fringe effect" would be 0.1. i.e. the peaks and troughs of the horizontal and vertical pulses would be 0.1*0.01 = 0.001 unit distance (or unit time) away from each other.

The reason we do not observe the fringe effect is because light is not propagating through a stationary passive aether. Light propagates as a torsion along a taut entwined rope-like intermediary between the mirrors. As an atom in each of the mirrors comoves to the side so does the rope connecting them. The signal propagates down the rope and back at c. It does not have to traverse an extra distance in any comoving circumstance because the rope does not stretch. As long as the emitter and source are comoving the rope between them is exactly the same length at all times. The source/emitter being "stationary" is no different than uniformly comoving source and emitter.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests