Gravity - Miles Mathis

[Chromium6]

Whenever you see "ε0" (permittivity of free space) in Mathis' papers you are see him ready to correct something.

http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/quantumg.html
http://milesmathis.com/fine.html
http://milesmathis.com/bohr3.pdf
--------

     But remember that we took the Coulomb equation from an experiment that measured current in a length of wire. Since we have an extended length, we must also have an extended time. Although we may have a constant velocity and therefore an acceleration of zero, we still must represent that series of intervals in our math. That is why the Coulomb equation has the extra time variable in the denominator.

Before I move on, let me clear up one other mess. The permittivity of free space is

ε0 = 1/c2μ0 = 8.8541878176 × 10-12 C2/Jm
Permittivity ε0 is the ratio D/E in vacuum.
μ0 is the permeability of vacuum, and has the value 4π×10-7 N/A2.
N/A2 turns out to be m2/N, so that
ε0 = 8.85 × 10-12kg/m3
Or, if we express mass in terms of length and time, then
ε0 = 8.85 × 10-12 /s2

Why did I express the constant that way? One, to reduce it to its simplest dimensions. Two, to show that it can be assigned to something else entirely. Since free space cannot have permittivity, by definition of "space" and of "free," that constant must be owned by something else in the field. That number is not coming from nowhere, so some real particle or field of particles must own it. To discover what it is, we notice that it looks like an acceleration that lacks a distance in the numerator. We want to transform that number into an acceleration, so we need meters in the numerator. So we start by multiplying by 1 meter. That gives us a sort of acceleration, but we aren't allowed to just multiply by 1 meter without a transform. We must insert the meter into the equation in a legal manner, you see. To do that, we must ask how the time we already had in the equation and the meter we just inserted are related to each other. How many meters are in a second? Seems pretty difficult until we remember that light knows the answer. Light goes 300 million meters in a second, and that is the answer. In one meter, there are 1/300 million seconds, so we multiply by 1/300 million. That will allow us to insert the meter into the equation legally.

If we do that, we end up with ε0 expressed as an acceleration instead of as kilograms per cubic meter.

ε0 = 8.85 × 10-12 m/(3 x 108)s2 = 2.95 × 10-20m/s2.

That is lovely, because I have shown that is about the value of gravity for the proton. Yes, ε0 is not the permittivity of free space, it is the gravity field created by protons (and electrons).

You will say that before I found that number for gravity at the quantum level, I found a number for the "gravitational" acceleration of the proton (in my first paper on G) of 4.44 x 10-12m/s2. Which is correct? Well, it took me a while to notice myself, but that earlier figure is actually ε0/2. Just look above, where I write ε0 as 8.85 × 10-12/s2. In my paper on G, I was finding ε0 by a variant method, and I wasn't even aware of it. Have you ever seen anyone else find ε0 straight from G, in a few equations of high school algebra? My only problem in that earlier paper is that I didn't see how c fit into the solution, both as a correction of the dimensions and as a mechanism for measuring gravitational acceleration. I am still sorting through it, honestly, but it appears that as light is a time setter in Relativity, it is also a length setter here. All lengths are measured against c, and so we have to divide by c even when finding the gravity of the proton.
------

To discover this, I had to be sent by a reader to Maxwell's lesser known displacement current. The reader (Steven Oostdijk—an electrical engineer) didn't send me to find what I found, but I thank him nonetheless. It took me about ten seconds to see this, and for alarm bells to go off:
D =ε0E + P
That is Maxwell's equation for the electric displacement field, where E is the electric field intensity, P is the polarization of the medium, and ε0 is the permittivity of free space. The alarm bells went off as soon as I saw ε0, since I have shown in previous papers that the permittivity of free space is misassigned to free space. We should have known that, since free space cannot have any physical characteristics like this. If it did, it would be neither free nor space. In writing the unified field equations, I showed that the constant ε0 actually stands for gravity at the quantum level.* The constant ε0 can be written as 8.85 × 10-12 /s2 , but it can also be written as 2.95 x 10-20 m/s2. Just divide through by c. You will say the dimensions don't work, but they do, as you can see by going to that previous paper. At any rate, in unrelated calculations, I found that same number for the gravity field of the proton.

The constant is not the permittivity of free space, it is gravity as created by nucleons.

http://milesmathis.com/charge.html

[D_Archer]

Is there a chart somewhere that shows the energy of each photon frequency? Does such a chart of photon energies show jumps where spins stack up? Do you know at what frequencies the spins should stack up?

There are EM spectrum charts with energy mentioned, but i dont know about charts specific to the work of Miles. With photons the radius gets larger, i think the spin stacks starts with the electron...*

Has a mechanical reason been found for why photons' linear or translational speed is the same for all sizes of photons below the size of electrons, but not for electrons themselves and not for any larger particles? Would it have to do with where electrons and larger particles are formed, such as in stars etc? If so, can the explanation be posted?

The speed is generally c, Miles said it is just an average, if there is a part of space with more 'room' maybe the speed would go up, as for electrons they are big enough to recycle the charges field, ie their size enables them to taken in smaller photons, this would slow them down.

Regards,
Daniel

[LongtimeAirman]

.
Daniel. Miles calculated the spin speed as 1/c, when you say the spin speed varies that is not really the case, the radius/size of the photon can vary, a larger size even with the same spin speed would take longer to make a full rotation, a full rotation is a single wave.
Airman. Cr6’s permittivity post also includes ‘1/300 million seconds’. I really need to keep repeating your comment it until I understand it. It’s seems similar to finally figuring out frequency and bandwidth. They are inverse of each other. The spin speed must vary, or do you believe 1/c is a constant? Does the radius vary instead?

Daniel. There are EM spectrum charts with energy mentioned, but i dont know about charts specific to the work of Miles. With photons the radius gets larger, i think the spin stacks starts with the electron...*
Airman. What makes you believe that spin stacks starts with the electron? We’ve had some discussion, and would certainly welcome your views. Stacked Spin Motion Simulator, http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t118-st ... lator#847I


Daniel. The speed is generally c, Miles said it is just an average, if there is a part of space with more 'room' maybe the speed would go up, as for electrons they are big enough to recycle the charges field, ie their size enables them to taken in smaller photons, this would slow them down.
Airman. Any spin doubled photon recycles smaller photons. Above, I said there are 8 doublings to get to an electron, so I already believe that photons can overtake and recycle through 8 species of sub electron sized particles, which clearly implies faster than light behavior. Since you believe that the electron is the first doubling, you don’t have a faster than light problem.

Thanks for the discussion.
.

[moonkoon]

Relativity at least finds a place for gravity in the contours of the the spacetime geodesic but it doesn't fare so well when it comes to the other recent big thing in physical theory, Quantum Mechanics. This very successful model is strangely muted when it comes to gravity.

Quantum Mechanics deals with energy levels that give matter its structure and properties. These energy magnitudes overwhelm any effect that gravity might exercise and as a result it just doesn't rate, everything works fine without it. But nevertheless the concept is dogged by demands that it be 'unified' with the with the gravitational geodesic assertions of Relativity. Much time and effort has been devoted to resolving the issue and a number of addons such as Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory have been developed in the attempt to include gravity in the quantum picture. But all are problematic in some way, for example,

... Loop quantum gravity is a way to quantise space time while keeping what General Relativity taught us. It is independent of a background gravitational field or metric. So it should be if we are dealing with gravity. Also, it is formulated in 4 dimensions. The main problem is that the other forces in nature, electromagnetic, b and weak cannot be included in the formulation. Nor it is clear how loop quantum gravity is related to general relativity.

... String theory is a quantum theory where the fundamental objects are one dimensional strings and not point like particles. String theory is large enough to include the standard model and includes gravity as a must. The problems are three fold, first the theory is background dependant. The theory is formulated with a background metric. Secondly no-one knows what the physical vacuum in string theory is, so it has no predictive powers. String theory must be formulated in 11 dimensions, what happened to the other 7 we cannot see? ...

Quantum mechanics has a hard time 'seeing' gravity and doesn't really need it to exercise its quantitative talents. It goes about its quantum scale business quite successfully without it. Perhaps Quantum mechanics is trying to tell us something about the nature of gravity, ...that maybe it doesn't exist as a discrete entity but is somehow an integral part of the geodesically guided inertial motion inherent in all matter, its motion groundstate, and whose origin is perhaps not based in matter itself. Maybe one needs to consider the local geodesic energy state (if there is such a thing) rather than the matter energy state so that the raising of a finger changes the energy state of its surroundings rather than the energy state of the finger itself.

To reiterate, is it possible that the energy considerations of gravity are related to the alteration of the geodesic of spacetime, ...where the energy variation is necessary to reconfigure the local geodesic, ...because different locations require different inherent energy levels? That, together with a tendency for things to attempt to occupy the lowest motion groundstate in the local system, i.e. the center, may provide a more useful picture of this mysterious phenomenon. It may also lead to an understanding as to why gravity is only discernible at larger scales in that at quantum scale, perhaps most matter is close the local motion groundstate of the appropriate scale.

If it improves clarity, readers can substitute the phrase 'aspect of the aether' or similar for the words 'spacetime and geodesic'. I don't mind.

As I would be surprised if the concept of a variable local aether energy state has not been discussed previously, apologies if I have appropriated any ideas without attribution.

[willendure]

Relativity at least finds a place for gravity in the contours of the the spacetime geodesic but it doesn't fare so well when it comes to the other recent big thing in physical theory, Quantum Mechanics.

McCulloch seems to be making progress in reconciling the two:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ge_ukRbuOw

I was interested enough to obtain his book "Physics from the Edge". The ideas are a little bizarre, and to me suggest that the universe is holographic in nature - but he is getting results from a hypothesis that has no 'tuning' parameters. I should really write up a review of the book and post it here.

[Pi sees]

Quantum mechanics has a hard time 'seeing' gravity and doesn't really need it to exercise its quantitative talents. It goes about its quantum scale business quite successfully without it. Perhaps Quantum mechanics is trying to tell us something about the nature of gravity, ...that maybe it doesn't exist as a discrete entity but is somehow an integral part of the geodesically guided inertial motion inherent in all matter, its motion groundstate, and whose origin is perhaps not based in matter itself. Maybe one needs to consider the local geodesic energy state (if there is such a thing) rather than the matter energy state so that the raising of a finger changes the energy state of its surroundings rather than the energy state of the finger itself.

Maybe gravity could be a manifestation of the Law of Conservation of Energy?

Think about an object dropped from a height above the surface of the Earth. The object cannot automatically move in any cardinal direction, otherwise it is doing work relative to the surface of the Earth. The object cannot automatically move upwards for the same reason, and it can't stay where it is released because that would require it to somehow maintain a rotational velocity relative to the center of the Earth which was previously being supplied by the hand that dropped the object. The object has no choice but to move towards the center of the Earth, because it is only at that location that the object isn't required to to do any work relative to either the rest of the Earth or the orbital path of the Earth itself. But then why does an object fall at the accelerating rate that it does...

[webolife]

I've been around the block a few times on this topic, but...
What if gravitation is just a synonym for the finitude of the universe? It is held together. This infers an "it", an object. A bounded object. The binding "power" must be greater than the object it binds, therefore we see the finite universe in an infinite field. This field is fractally manifested at every scale, and depending upon the field scale and the interacting objects, we call it gravitation, nuclear force, electricity, voltage, magnetism, Casimir force, or the like. And for my view I add "light" to the list of binding field manifestations. It is natural to ask then what is the nature or source of that pressure I refer to as the Centropic Pressure Field? One can surmise or premise whatever one wishes at that point of inquiry, but the exigent requirement of finitude is a boundary condition. I merely describe that condition, and draw all the other aspects of physics from this unified field. There is not yet a satisfactory explanation for gravitation in a infinitely massive universe. Hoyle's steady state was a try, as is the Big Bang he mocked. Neither accounts for the behavior of objects we determine by looking at the light we observe.
Maybe [we] just don't understand that "light" is the connection between us and all things universal, not stuff being projected, reflected, emitted, absorbed, or obliterated by our viewing it.

Anyway, don't reply to this post if doing so would derail the thread, but when people start talking about gravity as a geometric consequence, the lights flash and the bells ring for me! I'm not into the Riemannian silliness of Einstein, although LaGrangian gravitational manifolds are very intriguing. "Geodesic" is also a bellringer, as it speaks of "tensegrity", a direct consequence of the natural placement of objects in an equilateral or hexagon configuration, the geometric basis for my* pressure field vectors.

{*my -- in acknowledgment of Robert Archer Smith [deceased], who pointed me to this concept in Seattle 35 yrs ago}

[moonkoon]

Hi willendure, thanks for the link to the video.

As McCulloch himself acknowledges on his blog the uncertainty principle applies at small scales (the wavelengths associated with larger scale objects involved are off the scale ), so I'm not sure if it would have any relevance in the large scale world of planets. But it is interesting nonetheless and we can add it to the list of 'unifications'. The author is to be congratulated on his ingenuity.

However I still think it is worth devoting some thought to the heretical idea that motion (kinetic) energy exchanges can occur between matter and the aether, ...similar to how the exchange of e/m energy can occur between matter and spacetime.