Gravity - Miles Mathis

[querious]

The reason there is a difference in the volume of the "water gram" and the "platinum gram" is its atomic mass number difference .....or its density!

You have accused Thornhill of circular logic , however you here demonstrate it yourself.
You are using known gravity, to weigh a substance or define the amount of substance that is arbitrarily attributed a gram "mass" value at specific temperature and pressure. Or compare weights of different objects to determine mass.

The subject is determination of gravity ! If mass is defined simply how much of a particular substance reacts to gravity then that is also circular logic in Newtons formula (I agree that this is how it is now done routinely without deeper thought) . Mathis is correctly pointing out this circular logic and directing the reader to what fundamental aspects of a particular type of matter determine it's mass..... and that is the fundamental chemistry of the substance.
Cheers

How big your sphere of unknown matter is has nothing to do with it's mass determination.

So my post didn't help you with the question of how to determine how much mass is in your 2 meter sphere, at all?!?!?!

I never referenced any density or gravity, and yet I gave you it's mass.

What does density have to do with the reference kilogram?

Chan, HELP! You're a lot more patient with this stuff!

[chrimony]

Hi querious

Like a meter stick sets the scale for distance, we originally called 1cc of water (at standard temp and pressure) = 1 gram of mass.

Now there is a reference plug of platinum that we DEFINE as having a mass of 1 kg, sitting in a basement in Paris, and we don't particularly care what it's volume happens to be.

We take our 2 meter sphere of "matter" and put it in a large pan balance and compare it with a known mass.

Now we know it's mass, and we didn't even have to measure it's volume. Which is why mass is much more fundamental than density. We also didn't need to care what the local g happens to be. It would work just as well on the moon, and give us the same mass reading.

Density is called a "derived" quantity, while mass is considered fundamental.

On the contrary is is you that is "weighing" the subject to impute mass.

The reason there is a difference in the volume of the "water gram" and the "platinum gram" is its atomic mass number difference .....or its density!

You have accused Thornhill of circular logic , however you here demonstrate it yourself.
You are using known gravity, to weigh a substance or define the amount of substance that is arbitrarily attributed a gram "mass" value at specific temperature and pressure. Or compare weights of different objects to determine mass.

The subject is determination of gravity ! If mass is defined simply how much of a particular substance reacts to gravity then that is also circular logic in Newtons formula (I agree that this is how it is now done routinely without deeper thought) . Mathis is correctly pointing out this circular logic and directing the reader to what fundamental aspects of a particular type of matter determine it's mass..... and that is the fundamental chemistry of the substance.
Cheers

I really don't see how anybody with even the most basic knowledge of physics can defend Mathis here. The conservation of mass is one of the first things they teach you. The density can be changed radically, but the mass stays the same. A given amount of water will have different densities when it is frozen versus liquid versus gas, but the mass doesn't change. And you don't need gravity to measure mass, as F = ma works just fine when the force isn't gravity. So use a horizontal force perpendicular to gravity to measure it. Now what does density have to do with it? How is it more fundamental than mass? It's just bonkers.

[querious]

Hi querious

Like a meter stick sets the scale for distance, we originally called 1cc of water (at standard temp and pressure) = 1 gram of mass.

Now there is a reference plug of platinum that we DEFINE as having a mass of 1 kg, sitting in a basement in Paris, and we don't particularly care what it's volume happens to be.

We take our 2 meter sphere of "matter" and put it in a large pan balance and compare it with a known mass.

Now we know it's mass, and we didn't even have to measure it's volume. Which is why mass is much more fundamental than density. We also didn't need to care what the local g happens to be. It would work just as well on the moon, and give us the same mass reading.

Density is called a "derived" quantity, while mass is considered fundamental.

On the contrary is is you that is "weighing" the subject to impute mass.

The reason there is a difference in the volume of the "water gram" and the "platinum gram" is its atomic mass number difference .....or its density!

You have accused Thornhill of circular logic , however you here demonstrate it yourself.
You are using known gravity, to weigh a substance or define the amount of substance that is arbitrarily attributed a gram "mass" value at specific temperature and pressure. Or compare weights of different objects to determine mass.

The subject is determination of gravity ! If mass is defined simply how much of a particular substance reacts to gravity then that is also circular logic in Newtons formula (I agree that this is how it is now done routinely without deeper thought) . Mathis is correctly pointing out this circular logic and directing the reader to what fundamental aspects of a particular type of matter determine it's mass..... and that is the fundamental chemistry of the substance.
Cheers

I really don't see how anybody with even the most basic knowledge of physics can defend Mathis here. The conservation of mass is one of the first things they teach you. The density can be changed radically, but the mass stays the same. A given amount of water will have different densities when it is frozen versus liquid versus gas, but the mass doesn't change. And you don't need gravity to measure mass, as F = ma works just fine when the force isn't gravity. So use a horizontal force perpendicular to gravity to measure it. Now what does density have to do with it? How is it more fundamental than mass? It's just bonkers.

Hi Chrimony,
"Conservation of Mass-Energy" is the real conservation law, but I won't quibble.

I think Corpuscles is unaware that for a long time, the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass (your horizontal spring mass) was somewhat of a mystery.

It was Einstein who came along and said if we raise this mysterious coincidence to a postulate (the "EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE"), and combine it with Special Relativity, then General Relativity is the unavoidable, natural outcome.

Mathis' idea that gravity is partly EM can't come close to explaining that curious link between gravitational mass and inertial mass. In GR, they are exactly the SAME THING.

REAL SCIENCE is cool and interesting.

[comingfrom]

Violating common sense never stopped physics before, querious.

Black Holes (infinite densities in zero volume). Curved nothingness (space/time fabric).
These things violate common sense too.

I had the same problem as you, at first.

As I said before, I have no problem with proposing radical notions of gravity. But at least demonstrate the least bit of competence when it comes to physical reasoning. Miles has shown quite clearly he doesn't have it. To wit: saying that the gravity should be in the same ratio as the radii of Earth and Moon. That's a non-starter just because it violates common sense, and even you couldn't begin to defend it. Mathis is like religion, because you are forced to abandon reason with both.

This 'violated' my 'common sense' too.
But now I got my head around it, it makes perfect plain simple beautiful sense.
(Which is uncommon sense these days. Even rare. ).

Let me try to summarize it briefly.

Common sense says that gravity is an attractive force, but Matthis says there is one repulsive force, the charge field.
All matter recycles charge, and there is an ambient charge.
Celestial bodies move through the charge field, emitting charge.
What pushes bodies together is the ambient charge, which would be even all around, except when one body approaches another, then less push comes from the sides of the bodies approaching each other, so the ambient field pushes them in towards each other. The force is directly proportional to the diameters of the bodies, and nothing else. Because the size of the other body is what determines how much of the ambient force is blocked in that direction.

Matthis gives charge to density, so the bodies are also emitting charge, proportional to the amount of atoms (charge recyclers), and regardless of their size. When the ambient field has pushed the celestial bodies too close together, the charge emissions from the bodies themselves overcomes the external ambient push, and push them apart again. So orbits are created by the balancing of forces from the charge field from without, and from within. From the ambient field, and from the bodies own emissions.

I'm not sure I have comprehended completely, and welcome any corrections.
I'm still reading his papers.
But the amount of mathematical confirmations he comes across tells me he is on to something.

~Paul

[querious]

What pushes bodies together is the ambient charge, which would be even all around, except when one body approaches another, then less push comes from the sides of the bodies approaching each other, so the ambient field pushes them in towards each other. The force is directly proportional to the diameters of the bodies, and nothing else. Because the size of the other body is what determines how much of the ambient force is blocked in that direction.

Matthis gives charge to density, so the bodies are also emitting charge, proportional to the amount of atoms (charge recyclers), and regardless of their size. When the ambient field has pushed the celestial bodies too close together, the charge emissions from the bodies themselves overcomes the external ambient push, and push them apart again.

Forgetting for now the all the other things GR explains, if gravity was a blocking function, (and Mathis is far from the first person to think of it), then gravity still wouldn't scale with radius, it would scale with the cross-sectional area, A=pi*r2, not diameter.

And it doesn't explain why a hammer and feather would fall at the same rate on the moon, which is fully explained by the equivalence principle.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, querious.

Forgetting for now the all the other things GR explains, if gravity was a blocking function, (and Mathis is far from the first person to think of it), then gravity still wouldn't scale with radius, it would scale with the cross-sectional area, A=pi*r2, not diameter.

Radius, diameter, area, and volume, are all proportionally related.
Scale with one of them, and you have scaled with them all.

And it doesn't explain why a hammer and feather would fall at the same rate on the moon, which is fully explained by the equivalence principle.

This is another thing that violates common sense. And yet it is so.

And I think it does explain it. Newton's law says the mass of the smaller body should effect F too, yet it doesn't. The hammer and feather both fall at the same rate in vacuum because they are both being pushed at the same rate by the same force. Their falling has nothing to do with their mass (weight).

You just confirmed what Matthis says.
~Paul

[comingfrom]

Also,

Forgetting for now the all the other things GR explains

Let us not forget what GR explains.

GR explains that everything is relative, and dependent upon the position of the observer,
and that light speed must be taken into account when observing events at a distance.

But let us also remember, GR doesn't explain everything.
For example, it doesn't explain what gravity is. Nor charge.
It still even has problems in the math with the relativity which it does explain.

Matthis does not refute GR
~Paul

[querious]

The force is directly proportional to the diameters of the bodies, and nothing else.

Forgetting for now the all the other things GR explains, if gravity was a blocking function, (and Mathis is far from the first person to think of it), then gravity still wouldn't scale with radius, it would scale with the cross-sectional area, A=pi*r2, not diameter.

Radius, diameter, area, and volume, are all proportionally related.
Scale with one of them, and you have scaled with them all.

If you think gravity is a blocking function, better read this again...

It’s radius is 1/3.67 that of the Earth. And it’s gravity at the surface is about 1/6 that of the Earth. ... The ratios from the Moon are close, but they are far enough apart to deter all but the most eccentric from following up any idea that they might be related. If they were related, shouldn’t the gravity of the Moon be 1/3.67 that of the Earth?

Simple math shows this makes no sense, since with the theory as described by you, you need to take the AREA (r2) into consideration, not the radius. Do the math, you'll see what I mean.

[Pi sees]

And it doesn't explain why a hammer and feather would fall at the same rate on the moon, which is fully explained by the equivalence principle.

This is another thing that violates common sense. And yet it is so.

And I think it does explain it. Newton's law says the mass of the smaller body should effect F too, yet it doesn't. The hammer and feather both fall at the same rate in vacuum because they are both being pushed at the same rate by the same force. Their falling has nothing to do with their mass (weight).

In a vacuum, the resistance faced by each ground-facing atom of the feather is equal to the resistance faced by each ground-facing atom of the brick, and neither one of them has any additional force pushing them downward relative to the other. So I guess you could say that they have equal incentive to fall, and that the disparity in their respective falls doesn't have to show up in a difference of acceleration because it shows up in a difference of force due to difference in mass (as per F=ma).

[nicho247]

Do the math, you'll see what I mean.

Hi Querious - Go back and read my post (or re-read). Not sure if you got it since you didn't reply. Anyway, I read the Mathis link and did his derivation on my own...Again, I've only read a few of his articles/papers, and this one was focus'ed on stating, if (a big if), gravity perceived by people is the net combination of two forces. This total force is a mix of a gravity field and an e/m field. Once separated, he was able to single out from the gravity field (which he defined) that it was proportional to radius.

Radius is related to volume (r^3), and volume(V) is related to mass (M = DV).

His emphasis is to try to break down our perception into smaller variables, and isolate unknowns. You technically could replace all occurrences of mass with volume &/or density, if you took his argument to the extreme (with legwork to keep units of measure & constants consistent).

If you understand this line of thought, you won't focus on diameter or area, as it is inconsequential. You appear to be a sharp guy (or lady), so maybe you never read the Mathis' link?

Nick

[katesisco]

Well, am not sure about anything here but the pic of the day discusses 'gravity waves' and in the last paragraph gives the formula that includes MASS being careful to exclude matter so maybe gravity is just an alteration from magnetism. Just saying.....

[katesisco]

Well, am not sure about anything here but the pic of the day discusses 'gravity waves' and in the last paragraph gives the formula that includes MASS being careful to exclude matter so maybe gravity is just an alteration from magnetism. Just saying.....
http://milesmathis.com/liego.pdf

[katesisco]

http://milesmathis.com/liego.pdf
From the MM paper:
"""This is why they used to search for gravitons. Although GR also has no use for gravitons—since
gravity as curved space does not require a mediating particle—the mainstream used to look for
gravitons because they knew they needed them to sell this gravity wave nonsense. To compress space,
you need something in the space to be compressed. With gravitons, you can say that individual
gravitons are getting nearer, indicating compression. Compression is then a function of particle
densities. But as it is, “compressing space” has no physical meaning. You can't compress a vacuum,
because there is nothing to respond to pressure. It is words without physical content."""

HMMMMMMMMMM.......does this sound to you like the discoverers are proposing a 'gravity wave' in an ether without admitting to an ether?

[querious]

Radius is related to volume (r^3), and volume(V) is related to mass (M = DV).

His emphasis is to try to break down our perception into smaller variables, and isolate unknowns. You technically could replace all occurrences of mass with volume &/or density, if you took his argument to the extreme (with legwork to keep units of measure & constants consistent).

If you understand this line of thought, you won't focus on diameter or area, as it is inconsequential.You appear to be a sharp guy (or lady), so maybe you never read the Mathis' link?

Nick

Nick,
My focus on radius is what proves that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The Earth/Moon radius ratio is 1/3.67. However, the C.S. AREA ratio is 13.44, and the volume ratio is 1/49.

So how could g ratios be tied to their radii!?!?!

What principle of gravity could possibly be based solely on radius?

Is he really saying gravity has nothing to do with mass, just radius?!?! What if the moon were a cotton ball, but had the same radius?

What is wrong with g=GM/r2, which works for the Earth and Moon? Is G wrong? Is M wrong?

[comingfrom]

I take your point, querious.

But the math only worked when the radius was chosen.
You wouldn't deny simple math, would you?

There could be many reasons for this.
First, they are spherical bodies, so that surface area you are talking about is not flat, so won't block the same as flat surface would.
Second, Charge is taken in at the poles, and emitted at the equators, and there is greater charge density in the plane of the Solar System.
Even the ambient charge must follow the field lines set by the Sun. and that might be why equators are more relevant than areas.

And it's why densities of objects which are not on the plane, such as comets, get [mis]calculated to be about as dense as cotton balls, or dirty snow.
Isn't it?

What is wrong with g=GM/r2, which works for the Earth and Moon? Is G wrong? Is M wrong?

The equations just don't tell us anything of the nature of gravity, what it is, or how it acts to make g.
They don't tell us how much of F and g can be attributed to gravity, and how much can be attributed to charge.
They have led people to generally presume there is no electric fields involved in celestial motions.

And when we try to apply the same equations beyond the Earth and the moon, anomalies creep in, which can't be explained.
At the galactic scale, the equations utterly fail.

When we can solve your question for the Earth and the moon, then all things will fall into place in the new theory.
~Paul