Miles Mathis

[Solar]

So, here's something we can thumb through and digest and mark up to our hearts' content.
Jim

LOL!! Okay good, its not just me that is unable to resell a book due to all the notes in the space around paragraphs and excessive highlighter.

[Grey Cloud]

So, here's something we can thumb through and digest and mark up to our hearts' content.
Jim

LOL!! Okay good, its not just me that is unable to resell a book due to all the notes in the space around paragraphs and excessive highlighter.

Tsk, tsk, gentlemen. One should never deface a book.

[jjohnson]

I'll try to find out how it'll be available from Miles and post it here. I think he told me it was going to be through one of the self-publishing places, but not sure which one. Have no doubt that it will be mentioned prominently on his web site as the time approaches.

Actually I don't mark in my books, and didn't mean to give the idea that anyone should, unless maybe Soduko is your thing. I make notes on my computer or on paper (I know; I'm old), or occasionally use a post-it flag - the low-tack version - to mark a salient point.

[Cosmic Dick]

Bump
No comment to this then?

How does a scientist test the theory that all matter in the universe is expanding?
(cut)
Is it testable?
nick c

I haven't yet read the entire thread, please forgive me but it is 21 pages long so I've got some catching up to do, but I came across this comment early on page 2, and I have a point to make, so if this has already been answered I will apologise again later:

{how to test expansion theory}

This is not the first time I have come across this theory, some years ago I saw an advert in New Scientist for a book entitled "The Final Theory" subtitled "Rethimkimg our scientific legacy", by Mark McCutcheon, which I bought.

This book introduced me to the expanding matter theory, and also proposed a very simple method of testing it.

If I knew how to include graphics here I would.

You need a long tower with a platform on the top end for the astronaut to stand on.
The tower should be Earth radius in length, 6371km.
At the other end of the tower we need a counterweight that equals the mass of the tower, so that the centre of mass point is at the base of the tower.

If expansion theory is correct, an astronaut standing on the platform will experience the same acceleration force beneath him as if he were stood on Earth, creating an artificial gravity identical to that of our planet.

I know from reading Miles Mathis website that he uses pseudonyms (I love his artwork) and I wonder if Miles Mathis could also be Mark McCutcheon, same interest, same initials....

As for the theoretical side, I've only read about 50% of his work, and so far I have only one document I could disagree with, everything else so far read has impressed me, although I prefer the EU theory to his.

I intend to discuss that one document directly with Miles Mathis, eventually, when I get round to finishing all his other work....

CD

[nick c]

hi Cosmic Dick,

You need a long tower with a platform on the top end for the astronaut to stand on.
The tower should be Earth radius in length, 6371km.
At the other end of the tower we need a counterweight that equals the mass of the tower, so that the centre of mass point is at the base of the tower.

Perhaps there has been no response because most do not understand what you are proposing? Well, at least that applies to me, I just don't get what your saying.
This does not seem to be practical See the EU warnings on the space elevator!
And even so, I don't see how it could prove anything about a universal expansion since all parts would be expanding equally.
I must be missing something here?
Miles or someone needs to come up with a proposal for a test for his universal expansion.

Nick

[jjohnson]

Re my slightly earlier post, above, on the appearance of Miles's book, he says that it should be out on or about June 1, and that he will order placement on his site and his other publishing location, Walter Babin's site. His publisher is AuthorHouse. He is hoping that they will also be able to get him some space in the larger book stores and possibly Amazon, as well. Cheers!

[Siggy_G]

You need a long tower with a platform on the top end for the astronaut to stand on.
The tower should be Earth radius in length, 6371km.
At the other end of the tower we need a counterweight that equals the mass of the tower, so that the centre of mass point is at the base of the tower.

If expansion theory is correct, an astronaut standing on the platform will experience the same acceleration force beneath him as if he were stood on Earth, creating an artificial gravity identical to that of our planet.

Since such an enormous construction is extremely difficult to build, one could do with a tower of any percentage of that height, and measure the corresponding percentage of additional acceleration (compared to what one would expect at any given orbital level). Not sure why you mention counterweight... The way you describe it, it's located below the surface and hence a part of Earth i.e. no counterweight. The tower's mass measured onto the surface is still the same. Also, if the matter expands, wouldn't it just depend on the length / volume of the object (matter density aside)? Even if the center of mass is at the middle of the tower, it still pushes the astronaut on one side and pushes itself (and the astronaut) away from the surface on the other. The measured result of total acceleration / expansion (IF it is the case) is the same.

Edit: got to think of it, wouldn't the measured weight on the surface be more, if both the Earth and the object on the surface expands? The larger the object, the more addition to the weight (they push against each other)? I doubt this corresponds with observation / measurements - and engineering for large structures is a well developed field.

Also, distinguish between the traditional "Universal Expansion theory" and "Expanding Matter theory" - they are not the same. The first assumes an expansion of space whereas matter contains its structure by atom level forces. The latter assumes expansion of matter itself as well, ignoring/challenging the knowledge of the atom level forces at play for molecular structures, as well as the defined volumes of the electron shells within the atom.

[junglelord]

You know the amount of interest in Miles work, me included, is all math driven.

How interesting that even basic algebra can create two totally seperate views of reality from Newtons and Coulombs equations. We are stuck in our own paradox of algebra! However, while we rail against higher math that is beyond the masses and allow division by zero, I would like to think that the universe is solvable with algrebra.

So even we are stuck with math. The math of Maxwell, Faraday, Coulomb and Newton are therefore fundamental.

I know that Dave Thomson has found that indeed math is a cureall for some of our headaches. Yet some strain against the BASIC algebra of his work and yet entertain Miles aglebra as a Holy Grail.

However APM has some fundamental structural inculsions, one being Tensegrity, as well as the three fundamental structural equations of life, pi, phi, e. All forms exhibit Pi, PHI and e.

That resonates with me!

I just think its crazy for Aether Physics Model to strain so many people, when synesthesia tells me that a rotating magnetic field and a circular string could indeed create expanding and contracting distributed dual charge spheres and toroids of electrons and protons. This dual charge model is very close to the dual charge model of Meyl. One should consider that fact. When I first read the work of Meyl on the Scalar Field and the Dual Charge model, my mind had a huge explosion. I do work at a fundamental gut level when my synesthesia hits, as the knowledge base is huge, its an all knowing experinece, a flood of connections coming together, sometimes disconcerting, sometimes euphoric, like a download from the akashic records.

Miles eliminates that concept and the concept of + or - for a charge. That does not hit me in the gut.

Not like a dual charge model which is very interesting and very possible a way out of the zoo.

Its all in the geometry and the structure/function that a dual charge allows.

Gravity is a dipole in APM and matter and antimatter should therefore repel.

Of course I do like the idea that gravity is acceleration and that it is no illusion, but it requires expansion, that does not feel right. The two field view does interest me however.

So lets not forget that Blazelabs has a two field vector of radiation pressure, so gravity is a push, not a pull or an acceleration. This work is based on Plancks lenght, which brings us back to APM!

I believe the truth lies somewhere in one of those views. I lean towards Meyl, Thomson, Blazelabs, Treeincarnation.

One guiding principle for me is that structure and function cannot be seperated.

Yours truly
JL

[Cosmic Dick]

hi Cosmic Dick,

You need a long tower with a platform on the top end for the astronaut to stand on.
The tower should be Earth radius in length, 6371km.
At the other end of the tower we need a counterweight that equals the mass of the tower, so that the centre of mass point is at the base of the tower.

Perhaps there has been no response because most do not understand what you are proposing? Well, at least that applies to me, I just don't get what your saying.
This does not seem to be practical See the EU warnings on the space elevator!
And even so, I don't see how it could prove anything about a universal expansion since all parts would be expanding equally.
I must be missing something here?
Miles or someone needs to come up with a proposal for a test for his universal expansion.

Nick

I should have been more precise...

If I could put a drawing here I would, it would help explain.

This tower I mentioned, perhaps tower is the wrong word, as it implies being fixed to the ground.

It is built in space, at an L point probably, so it is not an elevator. At one end is a platform for an astronaut to stand on, at the other end is a countermass, that equals the mass of the whole tower.

If the countermass wasn't there it would expand from the middle, the countermass is there to put the centre of mass at the base of the tower, simulating the centre of the earth, and the astro standing on the other end will feel acceleration of one g under his feet.

The whole thing could very easily be scaled down, and you wouldn't need an astronaut on the end, you could use a simple accelerometer or something (sorry, I'm only a technician).

Re my comments about Mark McCutcheon and his book "The Final Theory", I see Mile Mathis is already aware of this book, and says so here, http://www.milesmathis.com/third2.html , although he says he has not actually read the book.

I have a copy myself, I bought it long ago and have already shown to my own satisfaction that it is wrong (and I have discussed this with the author), I might offer to send it to Miles Mathis, I've no more use for it.

[Cosmic Dick]

. The way you describe it, it's located below the surface and hence a part of Earth i.e. no counterweight.

Sorry, I should have explained, it is built in space, at an L point.

[nick c]

Thanks for the clarification.

Nick

[Siggy_G]

Sorry, I should have explained, it is built in space, at an L point.

Ah, right, I thought you meant kind of a space elevator type of construction. Well, still, they could build a construction of any length, and measure the weight of the astronaut (acceleration due to matter expansion) versus expected gravity between the construction and astronaut (based on mass).

Wouldn't this theory indicate that the gravity measured on a mountain top is higher than at sea level? Actual measurements show the opposite (Earth's slightly squashed shape and Moon's tidal effect aside):

Gravity decreases with altitude, since greater altitude means greater distance from the Earth's centre. All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to the top of Mount Everest (8,850 metres) causes a weight decrease of about 0.28%.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity )

But if gravity were the effect of an "expansion of everything", wouldn't a higher altitude - a wider radius from the Earth's center - inheritable cause more expansion acceleration on the mountain top?

[borut]

Guys pls stop a moment and rethink.

What you are talking is compound field of gravity and EM not only expanding gravity.

lp
Borut

[borut]

Now let’s start again!

If we have a ideal elevator, small mass (EM) and small in size (gravity), then we can use a radii of earth that elevator is build on as g(gravity a). So what is actually less at that height. Less is EM field!!! Not gravity.

I have question for you?

If you freefall from let say from hot air balloon. What force do you feel before you hit the ground?

lp
Borut

[borut]

...going further....

We have a neutron planet with small amount of protons that emits photons so we can see the planet but their force is very, very small.

Now the question:

A starship puts you at 20 km from that planet with orbital v is 0 and you have your eyes blindfolded.

What force do you feel before you hit that planet?

Now unfold your eyes. What do you see?
Is planet closing to you or are you falling towards the planet? Or you just believe what your mind is telling you?

lp
Borut