Miles Mathis

[borut]

I've missed this one:

Miles or someone needs to come up with a proposal for a test for his universal expansion.

Nick

http://milesmathis.com/call.html

lp
Borut

[Cosmic Dick]

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):

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?

That would seem to be right, but I must stress, I got that expansion theory test from Mark McCutcheon, which is different than Miles expansion theory, but wouldn't this also apply to his expansion too?

I haven't read enough about Miles expansion theory to comment, but Miles dismisses McCutcheons theory, or at least, he is not interested in reading it.

Which I tend to agree with, though I have read it.

If anyone else here would like to read this "Final Theory" book for themselves, I'll happily post it to them, save you wasting money buying it.

[Cosmic Dick]

I've missed this one:

Miles or someone needs to come up with a proposal for a test for his universal expansion.

Nick

http://milesmathis.com/call.html

lp
Borut

Thanks for that....
Do we know of any astronomers who might take up this challenge?

note: I have not read all Miles work, I've been more interested in his maths than his expansion theory, I need to understand that before going further.

[borut]

Thanks for that....
Do we know of any astronomers who might take up this challenge?

Not to my knowledge.
It would be nice if some astronomers would try.

lp
Borut

[Lloyd]

* I think the info on electrons, protons etc at http://www.commonsensescience.org is very promising. I'd appreciate if anyone who is somewhat competent in math and physics would check out the article at http://www.nanoworld.org.ru/data/200411 ... ectron.pdf and leave any comments at my thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =10&t=3138. I'd like to invite Trouserman too, but it seems that TM hasn't been visiting this forum since January. But everyone here is invited to comment. My comment is that it seems to be potentially better than APM and Mathis both.

[junglelord]

That is a whole lot closer to APM in theory and results, and it is no-where near to what Miles work deduces, Lloyd.
I just had to point that out, LOL.

Nice theory. Good stuff brother. Keep it up, the connections to APM are glaring ovbious.
Its impossible not to come to these conclusions with quantum building blocks.
These are physical models, both your new one Lloyd and APM
Structure determines funtion.
The toroid ring is essential to both models.
APM also has a spherical ES charge surrounded by the EM Toroid.
The historical view on their web page shows a eletron model, 100 years old, of a physical sphere, which some years later became a point, then a quantum possibility. The dude was right 100 years ago and this man is right. Put the two together, you got APM. The physical structures determine all electron shells, why there are seven rows in the Periodic Table, both predict that there are only four fundamental units, electron, proton, positron, antiproton... hell of a lot in common if you ask me. There is one major difference.

If you make ES fundamental then the sphere appears.
The reason why it is not the same as APM, is because they fail where everyone else does.
Not making ES Fundamental. You can rail against APM all you want, but without ES as a fundamental building block, your not getting the whole picture, your getting a donut without the timbit (canadian joke).

Anyway Tesla and Dollard are right, the universe is much more then EM, and the real power is ES.
You guys will admit it sooner or later. Without ES, the EM only theories are not fundamentally sound.

Miles of course does not accept this, as do most of you not accept this either.
I see no way to have a theory or model where ES is not fundamental.
Call me retarded, but I agree with Tesla, Dollard, Thomson.
ES is the missing key to a balanced theory of charge.

ES is not property of a gathering of electrons.....that is so WRONG.
ES is a fundamental charge that makes electrons....
its the magnet field decision. Is it the magnet itself, or is the field already there!
You can say that ES is due to electrons, but I do not buy that.
I say that ES is an electron, proton, positron, antiproton as well as EM.
It is not a either or, it is both.

Honestly this is the EU and no one but me thinks that ES must be a fundamental force????
Really? After all that work by Tesla and Dollard?
How can that be?
I don't get it!
ES induction is one of four types of induction.
That makes it fundamental. Come one dudes, all lightning is ES Impulses and as Tesla learned also Scalars.
It is the vehicle on which Tesla rode the Longitudinal Scalar wave.
And again, thats not fundamental? What is less fundamental the the Z Pinch????
Lightning is a Z PInch....

You guys need to rething that whole thing.
Magneto-dielectric fields are due to Electrostatic impulses.
Remember Tesla said that EM was nothing compared to ES.....
Any bells ringing yet???? Any Z Pinches going off????

Dollard claims that conductors are really electric reflectors and insulators are really electrical conductors....
I believe him and I understand why he says that. dollard also says that the magneto-dielectric field is where one needs to look to understand the universe. Well that M-D Field is due to Z Pinch events. The impusle magnifying transmitter, the star machine, the Z pinch. The Fundamental!

EM is releated to Mass. ES is related to aether. ES comes first, then EM. Ask Tesla. Ask Dollard, or believe me.

If you take a shock from ES, then EM, they are not the same charge

How we (My self included, for along time) ever got sold that ES is not fundamental, makes us all retarded.
Its just NOT LOGICAL to think that ES is a property of a group of electrons, yet we have been indoctrinated and brainwashed into this and also into the false concept that a magnet makes the field....

No way, its wrong, wrong, wrong.
The field makes all matter possible, the field is the aether and it is a RMF, and the ES charge creates with EM charge the four fundamental units of charge, induced by angular momentum (which is a solid mass as both APM and Lloyds ring model agree) and a event called tensegrity. Damn, sometimes I think I am brilliant.
LOL.


Either that or me, Tesla and Dollard and Thomson are fully retarded, mad scientist.
Take your pick, genius or over the top insanity.

Oh the humantiy, the Z Pinch ES not being fundamental...
you guys got no synesthesia,

[webolife]

Hey Junglelord, when you post, I usually just sit back and "listen" with my jaw dropped...
often it's just too catch-phrasey for me to get, but I completely agree with you here.
I realize that we have different lingo to describe stuff, but your ES is what I refer to as voltage, a fundamental outcome of the "T-force" of RA Smith, and the absolute essential balancing factor is angular momentum, which he simply calls energy. Together these create tensegrity, and the universe is held together in dynamic equilibrium. Magnetism is a product of the T-field, not the producer of it, and all the Z-pinch and other toroidal and vortical components are a natural result of the T-field geometry. I think I actually get you after all these years.

I am now in contact with the owner of the two sole copies of Robert Archer Smith's manuscripts, and hope to find a way to get his stuff public in the near future.

[seasmith]

Cosmic Dick wrote:

note: I have not read all Miles work, I've been more interested in his maths than his expansion theory, I need to understand that before going further.

The math, although fundamental (and often quite eloquent), is inherently a translation of the fact.

One might take the progressing fractal image below and imagine it in three spatial dimensions, plus an holographic enfolding at each transition.
A simple yet valid example of Expansion / Duration.



Ever new, ever the same.
~

[Siggy_G]

One might take the progressing fractal image below and imagine it in three spatial dimensions, plus an holographic enfolding at each transition. A simple yet valid example of Expansion / Duration.

I like the image and the analogy. But isn't this one of those hypotheses that can't really be falsified? E.g. mulitple Universes; one for each decission, red shift due to expanding spacetime, continental shapes due to Earth growing...

A philosopher amusingly put it: "Multiple Universes may be possible, but it also shows how abstractly someone can view their world, and still be satisfied about their thinking".

One need to find ways to measure or test hypotheses - or compare one type of measurement to another.

As stated earlier, and from what can be seen on the scaling fractal image - the expansion would appear stronger in the outer regions, compared to the inner. The person may feel the same acceleration at any point (because the mulitplier is the same), but it should be possible to comparativelly measure an offset from a lower altitude to a higher, on the surface of Earth. At least when two reference points move between the altitudes.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, a uniform scaling is a linear process, whilst a fractal expansion (inherital scaling) is an exponential process. Therefore, one should see more extremes at the tips - the Earth should be spiking off in all directions. Obvioulsy not observed at the growth rate needed to account for gravity.

[seasmith]

~
Siggy_G wrote:

I like the image and the analogy. But isn't this one of those hypotheses that can't be falsified?

S,

It's just an analogy, like a mathematical equation, not a hypotheses.

s

[junglelord]

As stated earlier, and from what can be seen on the scaling fractal image - the expansion would appear stronger in the outer regions, compared to the inner. The person may feel the same acceleration at any point (because the mulitplier is the same), but it should be possible to comparativelly measure an offset from a lower altitude to a higher, on the surface of Earth. At least when two reference points move between the altitudes.

If Miles is correct, we do not need any test, gravity is acceleration, no illusion.
Unless gravity disappears, it may be the answer.

On the other hand electrogravitics, when I proached the subject to Miles, had no ideas about it.
His theory did not explain the electrogravitics of TT Brown, nor did he find any reasonable stuff from Eric Dollards work on Tesla. I am swinging the other way. Technology that has been seen, classified technology, is some form of plasma envolope, and high electric tension is part of the process. I would like to see more hardware from the work of Miles. TT Brown and Tesla built hardware.

[Siggy_G]

S,
It's just an analogy, like a mathematical equation, not a hypotheses.

Sure, but I was still commenting on the Expanding Matter hypothesis. It must be testable/falsifiable, somehow. Not that gravity is very well explained at all in terms of its actual cause. But... if everything is expanding... wouldn't a light pulse between two planned points result in an offset? While the pulse has travelled through some medium from A to B, the environement has grown a bit, in all directions. Where the light hits will be off set compared to the geometrical (planned out) line of sight.

A satelite orbiting Earth... If Earth and the satelite both grows, wouldn't that be visually noticable? Or planets for that matter. Surely, space and matter must be expanding differently, due to their density difference. So things should appear to grow. Or what is the reasoning for everything expanding?

Also, expanding matter hypothesis (not "theory", since it's not testable/falsifiable/empirically supported) contradicts what both mainstream and EU so far knows about atomic structures, electron shells, strong (atomic) force and so forth. I'm just not convinced...

[StevenO]

S,
It's just an analogy, like a mathematical equation, not a hypotheses.

Sure, but I was still commenting on the Expanding Matter hypothesis. It must be testable/falsifiable, somehow. Not that gravity is very well explained at all in terms of its actual cause. But... if everything is expanding... wouldn't a light pulse between two planned points result in an offset? While the pulse has travelled through some medium from A to B, the environement has grown a bit, in all directions. Where the light hits will be off set compared to the geometrical (planned out) line of sight.

Good question. Your line of reasoning explains the apparent bending of photons around the sun at an eclipse for instance. In the 8 minutes that the photon travels from the sun to the earth, the surface of the earth expanded, so the photon will be observed at a different location than was expected. Using this method you can calculate the bending with a few lines of algebra, while Einstein needed 40 pages of math to get to the same result with General Relativity.

A satelite orbiting Earth... If Earth and the satelite both grows, wouldn't that be visually noticable? Or planets for that matter. Surely, space and matter must be expanding differently, due to their density difference. So things should appear to grow. Or what is the reasoning for everything expanding?

The relative sizes and distances of objects all remain proportionally the same. Only when the travel of photons is involved you will discover abberations wrt. to a hypothetical straigh line. I think using expansion theory one can show that distant stars are at very different locations than expected because of this.

Why is everything expanding? Cogito ergo sum. Expansion theory is just the simplest explanation for gravity, so I think it has preference over other theories (like curved space or forces at a distance).

Also, expanding matter hypothesis (not "theory", since it's not testable/falsifiable/empirically supported) contradicts what both mainstream and EU so far knows about atomic structures, electron shells, strong (atomic) force and so forth. I'm just not convinced...

Sure it is testable. Push a piece of matter, it will push back. Where does that force come from?

[Siggy_G]

Thanks for your comments, Steven.

Expansion theory is just the simplest explanation for gravity, so I think it has preference over other theories (like curved space or forces at a distance).

I still find it odd... I will read more into it, but so far it places itself in the same shelf as the other theories, that don't really explain the causes, just very accuratelly the effects. I look forward to see what Wall Thornhill's investigation on the gravity subject is, and I'm more biased towards EM causes for gravity.

Sure it is testable. Push a piece of matter, it will push back. Where does that force come from?

What is felt, is my own attempt to transfer kinetic energy to the other object. Any elastic molecular structures will need to be compressed to the point where its rigid enough to continue the kinetic energy transfer more directly. If there was no inertia, or no felt "counter force", I haven't transfered any energy, just used the energy individually needed to, say, straighten out my arm. Friction (as I see it: many tiny angular surfaces opposing the direction of movement) is another factor for a felt counter force in most cases.

( To me, I find it fairly easy to understand how objects machanically interact, by visualizing their respective volume and density, compared to each other. That, in combination with their respective movements. Simply a water balloon, or a liquid of thick viscocity, gives an amusing visualization of the density-play and interaction towards more dense objects. Imagine objects as 3d grids of different density (i.e. cubic amount of vertexes or particles) and of appropriate elasticity. The attack points will either deform, rotate or move the objects - or a combination of all. )

[webolife]

Push on a piece of matter, and it will push back... that is purely ES.