Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[David]

Dropping ball bearings above a very thick sheet of lead would be likely to yield an acceleration measurably below 9.8 m/s2.

"The Moon Gives Up A Secret"

That explains how the Egyptians were able to build the Great Pyramid at Giza. They used a "thick sheet of lead", which according to Mathis, produces an anti-gravity shielding effect. Well, that clears up that mystery.

"The charge field causes almost everything.” -- Miles Mathis

[Chromium6]

Dropping ball bearings above a very thick sheet of lead would be likely to yield an acceleration measurably below 9.8 m/s2.

"The Moon Gives Up A Secret"

That explains how the Egyptians were able to build the Great Pyramid at Giza. They used a "thick sheet of lead", which according to Mathis, produces an anti-gravity shielding effect. Well, that clears up that mystery.

"The charge field causes almost everything.” -- Miles Mathis

Felix Andries Vening Mienesz (The Hague July 30, 1887 - Amersfoort August 10, 1966) was a Dutch geophysicist and geodesist. He is known for his invention of a precise method for measuring gravity. Thanks to his invention, it became possible to measure gravity at sea, which led him to the discovery of gravity anomalies above the ocean floor. He later attributed these anomalies to continental drift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_And ... ng_Meinesz

...ocean explorer F. A. Vening Meinesz showed that gravity is very slightly stronger over deep oceans. According to my theory outlined in this paper, this is not due to blocking, but the reverse. Oceans are less dense than land masses, creating less summed emission of the E/M field. A weaker E/M field creates a stronger Unified or compound field, and thereby greater weight.

Keep in mind.
--------
http://milesmathis.com/weight.html

The Two-Mile Problem

Let us return to the most important visualization and thought problem in this paper, the two-mile problem from above. Let us see how my compound field solves this problem mechanically. In doing this I will be able to clarify all my arguments up to this point.



To repeat, let us say that we are two miles from the center of two objects of equal mass. One object has a radius of one mile and the other has a radius of 1.5 miles. This puts us one mile from the surface of one, and ½ mile from the surface of the other. According to Newton’s equation, we should feel equal forces from both. We cannot apply the g equation, since we are not on the surface of either one. What does my mechanics have to say about it? Since I have shown that gravity—as a solo field—is dependent on radius only, one object should be “attracting” us 50% more than the other one. As a ratio of fields strengths, gravity is dependent on radius and radius alone. But beyond the surface of the object, this gravitational acceleration must fall off, and it falls off due to Relativity. As I show in a lengthy proof in Part III of my gravity papers, all accelerations obey the inverse-square law, due to time differentials. Even linear accelerations—ones not produced by spherical bodies—diminish with the inverse-square law. This means that our larger body will be attracting us 1.5 x 22 or 6 times as much as the smaller one.

But both objects are also emitting the foundational E/M field, so we must include that also. Using the surface area and mass equation that I developed mechanically above (to find the density of the E/M field), we find the first object with a field at the surface of

M/SA = 1/4π R2 = 1/4π

and the second object with a field of

M/SA = 1/4π (1.5)2 = 1/9π

So we see that the bigger object is moving at us faster, but bombarding us less. However, we must look even closer. It is bombarding us less, but we are twice as close to it. We are ½ mile from the surface of the larger object and one mile from the surface of the smaller. Beyond the surface of the objects, the E/M field drops off by an inverse quad law, since this is a real field of dispersing particles. As such it must diminish by an inverse-square law due to the spherical shape of the field—which we can now see comes right out of the surface area equation; but it also obeys the inverse-square law of Relativity, just like the gravitational acceleration. The two together give us 1/d4. This makes the comparative field of the second object 24 x 1/9π = 16/9π. So the larger object is bombarding us 7.1 times as much as the smaller.

Can we solve with just this information? We have an attraction that is 6 times as much and a repulsion that is 7.1 times as much. But no, we can’t solve without knowing the relative strengths of the two fields. And I have shown in other papers that the relative strength of the two fields is not constant. As your objects get smaller in size, the gravitational field gets smaller but the E/M field gets larger, as a fraction of the total. With the Earth and Moon, I have shown that the gravitational field is stronger than the E/M field. With the Earth, the gravitational field is 1000 times stronger; with the Moon, it is 2.5 times stronger. But with a 1” lead ball in a Cavendish machine, it is 1.86 times less strong. So we must take the sizes of our objects into consideration, in order to solve.

[David]

Dropping ball bearings above a very thick sheet of lead would be likely to yield an acceleration measurably below 9.8 m/s2.

"The Moon Gives Up A Secret"

I came up with an awesome experiment to test the Mathis charge field theory. And it would make an excellent carnival act, too.

Place a "thick sheet of lead" under a trampoline, and then amaze and astonish your friends by effortlessly performing quadruple flips. In fact, someone has already done the experiment; thus proving the Mathis theory.

Extreme trampoline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHWzvjR4QKM

[Chromium6]

Dropping ball bearings above a very thick sheet of lead would be likely to yield an acceleration measurably below 9.8 m/s2.

"The Moon Gives Up A Secret"

I came up with an awesome experiment to test the Mathis charge field theory. And it would make an excellent carnival act, too.

Place a "thick sheet of lead" under a trampoline, and then amaze and astonish your friends by effortlessly performing quadruple flips. In fact, someone has already done the experiment; thus proving the Mathis theory.

Extreme trampoline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHWzvjR4QKM

Show us yourself in the Video first doing flips as you describe above. Do it and show us.

Otherwise, this should be moved to the "Why Miles Mathis is wrong!" thread.

[Chromium6]

Above all keep an open mind about this:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/overvie ... ion_Energy

Because of the profound implications of success and the fledgling nature of the research, special management methods are recommended to ensure credible progress. Lessons from the NASA Breakthroughs Propulsion Physics Project include: (1) constraining the research tasks to only address immediate unknowns, curious effects or critical issues, (2) putting more emphasis on the reliability of assertions than their implications, and (3) having reviewers judge credibility rather than feasibility.

The search for breakthrough propulsion methods is an embryonic field encompassing many differing approaches and challenges. The majority of open research paths involve further study of possible reaction masses in space, the physics of inertial frames, the properties of the quantum vacuum, and the coupling of electromagnetism, spacetime and gravity. As much as these are basic areas of investigation for general physics, their investigation in the context of breakthrough spaceflight introduces another perspective from which to contemplate these lingering unknowns. This alternative perspective might just provide an insight that would otherwise be overlooked.

Much of the research is conducted as individual discretionary efforts, scattered across various government, academic, and private organizations. In addition to the research already described, there are many more approaches emerging in the literature and at aerospace conferences. At this stage it is still too early to predict which, if any, of the approaches might lead to a breakthrough. Taken objectively, the desired breakthroughs might also remain impossible.

Reciprocally, however, history has shown that breakthroughs tend to take the pessimists by surprise.

REFERENCES

1. Millis, M. 1999. NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. Acta Astronautica. 44(2-4): 175-182. (eq. NASA TM-1988-208400
2. Millis, M. 2004. Prospects of Breakthrough Propulsion from Physics. NASA TM-2004-213082.

[LongtimeAirman]

After that recent hit over Miles' paper on alternating current and inductance, (something that even the third world can appreciate), it is a pleasure to announce that he has now explained how semiconductors work.

Like the last paper, this subject matter hits me close to home, describing how we use our favorite technology, electricity. I don't know about you, but I wrote fermi-dirac equations for electron and electron hole flows that seemed embarassing even then.

Slowly but surely, in clear and simple terms, all the nuts and bolts  are defined in terms of the charge field.

NEW PAPER, 6/24/2014. Explaining the P-N Junction without Holes. I pull apart diode theory, including the misnamed tunneling diode.
http://milesmathis.com/dope.pdf

REMCB

[Chromium6]

What's this Sparky? Are you trying to say something on this Mathis thread?

[LongtimeAirman]

Sparky,

Miles is providing consistent physical models. It used to be called physics, as opposed to, say, your faith that there is a "virtual" infinite amount of energy available from the "vacuum" itself.

Once again, Miles' work is physics. Unlimited power based on faith is cult.

REMCB

[LongtimeAirman]

Has MM come up with a device that utilizes circulation of charge from an open system?

Sparky,

Not that I know of, assuming that 'open' means 'in the absence of opposing fields'.

There has to be a differential (changing E/M field, mass flow, temperature and pressure changes, charge, voltage) and a resulting net motion for any energy transfer.

Given a differential, we can have an Overunity balance. I'm sure MM would not debate that, but there is a rather large unsubstantiated to go from Overunity to Unlimited.

By the way, what was your opinion of the "warp" drive article I posted for you on this string a week or two ago?

REMCB

[Chromium6]

Something like this problem could be the real test of Mathis' Orbital Bonds theory. There could be a subtle solution using Mathis' models of elements and his Charge Field.
------

S. Graser, P. J. Hirschfeld, T. Kopp, R. Gutser, B. M. Andersen & J. Mannhart,
“How grain boundaries limit supercurrents in high-temperature superconductors,”

The definition of the superconducting pairing interaction

To model the known momentum space structure of the superconducting order parameter
in the weak coupling description of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes theory, one usually defines
an interaction Vij on the bonds connecting two nearest neighbor Cu sites. Unfortunately,
there is no obvious way to define an analogous pairing interaction in a strongly disordered
region of the crystal, as e.g. in the vicinity of the GB, since the exact microscopic origin of
this interaction is not known. Assuming that a missing or a broken Cu-O bond destroys the
underlying pairing mechanism, we develop a method of tying the superconducting pairing
interaction between two Cu sites to the hopping matrix elements connecting the two sites as
well as to the charge imbalance between them. Hence we define the pairing interaction on
a given bond as the product of a dimensionless constant V0, that is adjusted to reproduce
the correct modulus of the gap in the bulk, and the hopping parameter tij . In addition we
impose an exponential suppression of the pairing strength with increasing charge imbalance:

Vij = V0tije−|Qi−Qj |/e.

To avoid long range contributions to the pairing we use a threshhold of 0.2 eV for |tij |,
thus restricting the pairing interaction to the bonds between nearest neighbor Cu sites in
the bulk. Here we emphasize that although we tried to model the pairing interaction in a
realistic way, the exact procedure how we define the pairing interaction in the disordered
region does not qualitatively change the results.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/ ... 4191v1.pdf

[LongtimeAirman]

Chr6,

You are shooting way too high! How can you make head or tail of that?

Superconductivity, explained mechanically by the charge field. 3pp.
http://milesmathis.com/conduct.html

I imagine that if the plumbing were built from neutrons, we'd see the minimum resistance to charge flow.

Or if the motion (thermal) is reduced enough, a greater throughput results, especially when aligned with the earth's emission field.

When we talk about superconductivity, we are thinking of electric flow without resistance. Ion and electron flow never stopping or slowing.

I still can't say it makes any sense to me.

REMCB

[LongtimeAirman]

Sparky, Beyond our ability? Thanks for the links. I've always enjoyed Bearden. And I believe the fact that if photons and charge are matter, Miles helps bolster the materistic world view. REMCB

[Chromium6]

Chr6,

You are shooting way too high! How can you make head or tail of that?

Superconductivity, explained mechanically by the charge field. 3pp.
http://milesmathis.com/conduct.html

I imagine that if the plumbing were built from neutrons, we'd see the minimum resistance to charge flow.

Or if the motion (thermal) is reduced enough, a greater throughput results, especially when aligned with the earth's emission field.

When we talk about superconductivity, we are thinking of electric flow without resistance. Ion and electron flow never stopping or slowing.

I still can't say it makes any sense to me.

REMCB

Thanks for that superconductivity link REMCB!

If Mathis' theories hold true, then it may be a hunt to define the right "structures" to maximize charge flow. They've been on the hunt for a superconducting ceramic battery for over 40 years now... perhaps if the right structure is created it could even tap even the Earth's ambient charge field to channel flow. Superconductivity, in a sense, is like Dr. Körtvélyessy's "filaments" that are a singular directional flow of the Charge Field in only 1 direction, Mathis provides a few new clues to unlock this with. I always need to check back with his papers. Perhaps following the "quantum" path has killed progress with this Ceramic superconductor or other structures that emulates the original conception of a superconductor? Thanks.

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... tates.html

Also:
http://milesmathis.com/sl2.pdf

Since the Earth is recycling
charge that comes in from the Sun, all locations on the Earth will be recycling charge. The Earth pulls
in charge at the poles and emits it most heavily at the equator, in a defined channel. What this means as
a matter of vectors on the surface of the Earth is that gravity is pointing down and charge is pointing
up. The result is a differential. This is why
the Lagrangian
works as a differential, among many other
things. From this alone, we see that with superfluids, it isn't that gravity is being turned off. You
cannot turn off gravity. What is happening is that the charge field of the Earth is being maximized.
The superfluid is acting as a superconductor, and we already know that. Well, what it is conducting in
this case is the ambient charge field coming up out of the Earth. All normal bodies at all temperatures
conduct this field, but they don't
superconduct
it. Only superconductors superconduct the charge field.
When the charge field of the Earth is superconducted with a vector pointing up, the charge field can
trump the gravity field, causing real motion up. That is what we are seeing with superconductors.
I have already explained this unified field phenomenon before, but because it was buried in my paper
on the Allais Effect, only my best readers will be expected to make the connection. Which is why I am
here giving the idea its own paper. There I showed that the Podkletnov Effect is basically the same
effect as the one we are explaining here, except that there he used spin to increase the effect even more.
He used superconducting disks that were also spinning. Without spin, the effect is only sub-electrical,
since it relies on the summed linear motion of the photons moving up at the surface of the Earth. With
spin, the effect is both sub-electrical and sub-magnetic. In that case, the spins of the photons can be
made coherent, increasing the lift.

http://milesmathis.com/allais.html

[Sparky]

I have begun to reevaluate quantum mechanics. What does MM say about that area of study?
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

To some researchers, the experiments suggest that quantum objects are as definite as droplets, and that they too are guided by pilot waves — in this case, fluid-like undulations in space and time. ------------“Quantum mechanics is very successful; nobody’s claiming that it’s wrong,” said Paul Milewski, a professor of mathematics at the University of Bath in England who has devised computer models of bouncing-droplet dynamics. “What we believe is that there may be, in fact, some more fundamental reason why [quantum mechanics] looks the way it does.”--------
Later, the Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell went on to prove a seminal theorem that many physicists today misinterpret as rendering hidden variables impossible. But Bell supported pilot-wave theory. He was the one who pointed out the flaws in von Neumann’s original proof. And in 1986 he wrote that pilot-wave theory “seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.”----------A century down the line, the standard, probabilistic formulation of quantum mechanics has been combined with Einstein’s theory of special relativity and developed into the Standard Model, an elaborate and precise description of most of the particles and forces in the universe.----------------Couder and his colleagues placed a magnet at the center of their oil bath and observed a magnetic ferrofluid droplet. Like an electron occupying fixed energy levels around a nucleus, the bouncing droplet adopted a discrete set of stable orbits around the magnet, each characterized by a set energy level and angular momentum. The “quantization” of these properties into discrete packets is usually understood as a defining feature of the quantum realm.

Could we be deceiving ourselves by insisting that all phenomenon be physical as we understand it?

[LongtimeAirman]

Sparky,

If I recall correctly, starting with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle - the principle that the simultaneous knowledge of both the position and the velocity of an electron was impossible - QM declared that mechanics was unnecessary and was replaced with heuristic (provides correct numbers without any particular basis) math and probabilities.

Sparky wrote:
Could we be deceiving ourselves by insisting that all phenomenon be physical as we understand it?

Your question reflects the position of QM. The lack of certainty provides plenty of room for philosophical implications. Whether we have sufficient understanding of the actual physical cause is a separate and prehaps unknowable question. The imperative to find a physical cause is diminished.

In my opinion, all phenomena are physical, whether we know the cause or not.

The Thunderbolts forum is for scientifically interested folk to share information aimed at identifying the importance of electromagnetic forces in our universe, despite mainstream's insistence on gravity-only answers. In this forum, (philosophy aside), we assume phenomena DO have a physical basis.

Miles is all about putting a mechanical basis back into physics. He has more than a dozen pappers on QM. QM needs a lot of cleaning up.

Quantum Mechanics and Idealism
http://milesmathis.com/quant.html

REMCB