Gravity - Miles Mathis

[D_Archer]

Did astronauts bother to measure the effect of gravity on the moon, when they had the opportunity, to try to ascertain / prove the ratio of mass to G force.

Now that i think about it they have not done any test, but they did jump around lighter than on earth but did not bring any scales.

Most lucid is Miles Mathis about weight:
http://milesmathis.com/weight.html

Regards,
Daniel

[querious]

Did astronauts bother to measure the effect of gravity on the moon, when they had the opportunity, to try to ascertain / prove the ratio of mass to G force.

Now that i think about it they have not done any test, but they did jump around lighter than on earth but did not bring any scales.

Most lucid is Miles Mathis about weight:
http://milesmathis.com/weight.html

Regards,
Daniel

Daniel,
Would you be happy had the astronauts brought a fish scale to the moon with them, and recorded video of them going, "Look, this dead fish weights about 1/6 what it does on Earth!"

Honestly, getting men to the moon and back safely is not proof enough?

Again, since you said "they have not done any test", please explain what "test" are you proposing that would "prove the moon's gravity". I really am curious.

[querious]

Most lucid is Miles Mathis about weight:
http://milesmathis.com/weight.html

Regards,
Daniel

Miles Mathis is clueless about the subject. He writes....

.. "The volume of the Moon is 1/50 that of the Earth and its density is .606. Therefore we would expect its gravity to be .012 or 1/81 the gravity of the Earth. This is not what we found, but no one did me or Newton the favor of being shocked by this. They should be shocked because it means that gravity is not a function of mass. Mass is a function of volume and density, but the Moon’s gravity is a function of its radius and density. Volume and mass don’t appear to have anything to do with it.Why is no one shocked by this? It completely annihilates the assumptions of Newton and the standard model, but people accept all three and go on with their business."

My goodness, the man is clueless.

The standard formula for the acceleration due to gravity is: g=GM/r2

Notice he's not even saying we can't really determine true density. He simply can't do math and is SHOCKED that it doesn't come out right.

"Most Lucid?" I don't think so.

[Corpuscles]

Hi all

Comments, corrections and criticims most welcome!

Most lucid is Miles Mathis about weight:
http://milesmathis.com/weight.html

Regards,
Daniel

Miles Mathis is clueless about the subject. He writes....

.. "The volume of the Moon is 1/50 that of the Earth and its density is .606. Therefore we would expect its gravity to be .012 or 1/81 the gravity of the Earth. This is not what we found, but no one did me or Newton the favor of being shocked by this. They should be shocked because it means that gravity is not a function of mass. Mass is a function of volume and density, but the Moon’s gravity is a function of its radius and density. Volume and mass don’t appear to have anything to do with it.Why is no one shocked by this? It completely annihilates the assumptions of Newton and the standard model, but people accept all three and go on with their business."

My goodness, the man is clueless.

The standard formula for the acceleration due to gravity is: g=GM/r2

Notice he's not even saying we can't really determine true density. He simply can't do math and is SHOCKED that it doesn't come out right.

"Most Lucid?" I don't think so.

Dear querious

I have noted that the issue of gravity, in particular the cause of it , has been very close to your heart and mind of recent times. You will be pleased to be reminded that you are not alone or unusual , in that it has concerned almost every physicist, not the least Sir Issac Newton himself. (..and of course Wal Thornhill also )

I should emphasise I am not an advocate of Miles Mathis theory, and acknowledge in development of it he has made some major blunders , some have been corrected over time, some have not. I distance myself from those who seem to have a quasi religious admiration for his 'science'. But I haven't re read or studied it for years.

You will be aware that true scientific method is the careful, unbiased examination of a hypothesis to assess it on it merits.

If you thoroughly examine the passage you quoted, and drop the need for trivial ridicule, then you will IMHO find something quite profound that should have every advocate of the essence of an Electric Universe leaping in joy, punching the sky in celebration , as if your team <insert favourite sport> had just scored an important.... goal/touchdown/ home run/etc!!!

M. Mathis knows mathematics!, and ALSO the elementary Newtonian physics formula you quote as form of derision.
(to save you or others the trouble pi does not equal 4)

You correctly (vaguely) point out that density, in psycoscience babble circular reasoning, in gravity determination is a contrived result.

Please examine, ponder deeply, the bolded quote, preceeding the section you highlighted:
"Moon’s gravity is a function of its radius and density"

Clearly " Gravity" is not a direct, but rather an indirect, function of "mass" (whatever that abstract notion is?) !

In other words , experimentally proven, it has to do with :
1. The profile the body projects to "space" and "time". However not an imaginary curved "spacetime".
2. The amount of stuff ( by all accepted matter model definitions Electric "stuff") that is crammed into ,and forming the effect on space of that ..... profile!

Is it outward radiating ? or is it interacting with "space" as inward reaction to a pressure gradient ?

Either way it is electric!

As to the question of the thread.

I am no astrospace buff or nerd but I have some vague recollection of a fish scale being demonstrated in space.
However, NASA would be unlikely in Apollo missions to highlight their accurate calculation of the moons gravity, it would be a scientific embarrassment to highlight something that had to be experimentally determined as there is no way they could mathematically assess the "mass" or density of the moon!

Cheers

[D_Archer]

{good points}, electric! Cheers

This is in the Electric Universe section and i link to Mathis just for another point of view, as in my reading of Mathis a lot of it is compatible with EU,and that is only because yes, the charge field is electric. Saying things so simple belates a lot of understandings and insights and i am not one to explain them all, i just see the whole and i see the connections, i hope this helps other people with their understandings.

This thread is about the moon, i suggest we focus on that. When i call Mathis lucid, i think that should ring true for any laymen reading his articles, such as this one: The moon gives up a secret: http://milesmathis.com/moon.html

This will prove that the total weight-causing fields of both the Earth and the Moon are sums of the gravitational field and the E/M field, and that the solo gravitational fields can be shown to vary exactly as the radius of the object.

Inclusion, gravity and E/M, the meeting of fields, looking at the whole, that is EU imho.

Regards,
Daniel

[querious]

This thread is about the moon, i suggest we focus on that. When i call Mathis lucid, i think that should ring true for any laymen reading his articles, such as this one: The moon gives up a secret: http://milesmathis.com/moon.html

This will prove that the total weight-causing fields of both the Earth and the Moon are sums of the gravitational field and the E/M field, and that the solo gravitational fields can be shown to vary exactly as the radius of the object.

Inclusion, gravity and E/M, the meeting of fields, looking at the whole, that is EU imho.

Regards,
Daniel

Hi Daniel,
You should have included the sentence in front of that quote, 'cause then people could see how ridiculous it is...

In fact, I will show with a few very simple postulates and some even simpler math that the E/M field of the Moon is quite sufficient to make up the difference between 1/3.67 and 1/6. I will go even further and show that the E/M field of the Moon is exactly sufficient to make up that difference.This will prove that the total weight-causing fields of both the Earth and the Moon are sums of the gravitational field and the E/M field, and that the solo gravitational fields can be shown to vary exactly as the radius of the object.

He's trying to come up with some number to explain the "difference" between the Moon/Earth radii (1/3.67) and the Moon/Earth g fields (1/6).

First of all, why would you need to explain a difference in dissimilar quantities, radii and g?

Anyway, there's no magical discrepancy: Both the Earth and Moon follow g=GM/r2 - no need to include any "EM" component at all. The simplest of math suffices to explain the "difference".

This article proves Miles Mathis is a total bonehead or charlatan.

If you find this guy lucid, it's no surprise you can't see the glaring problems with Wal's dipole gravity theory.

[querious]

Hi all

Comments, corrections and criticims most welcome!

If you thoroughly examine the passage you quoted, and drop the need for trivial ridicule, then you will IMHO find something quite profound that should have every advocate of the essence of an Electric Universe leaping in joy, punching the sky in celebration , as if your team <insert favourite sport> had just scored an important.... goal/touchdown/ home run/etc!!!

M. Mathis knows mathematics!, and ALSO the elementary Newtonian physics formula you quote as form of derision.
(to save you or others the trouble pi does not equal 4)

You correctly (vaguely) point out that density, in psycoscience babble circular reasoning, in gravity determination is a contrived result.

Corpuscles,
Apparently you find something quite profound in Miles' writing about the moon, but I honestly can't figure out what it is. So please explain exactly and succintly what that is, and how it doesn't follow g=GM/r2.

Regards,
Querious

[Aardwolf]

Anyway, there's no magical discrepancy: Both the Earth and Moon follow g=GM/r2 - no need to include any "EM" component at all. The simplest of math suffices to explain the "difference".

Not sure it's wise to use g=GM/r2 to prove anything considering G & M are derived not measured and could be anything. It's only theory that assumes G to be constant and therefore M is determined based on the observation of g.

[querious]

Anyway, there's no magical discrepancy: Both the Earth and Moon follow g=GM/r2 - no need to include any "EM" component at all. The simplest of math suffices to explain the "difference".

Not sure it's wise to use g=GM/r2 to prove anything considering G & M are derived not measured and could be anything. It's only theory that assumes G to be constant and therefore M is determined based on the observation of g.

Aardwolf,
If that's the tack Miles was taking I'd be more sympathetic, as I mentioned before about him not disagreeing with the given density of the moon. It's just he conjures up mathematical "differences" that don't actually need explaining, because he doesn't get mathematical physics at all, and tries to compare numbers with different dimensions.

So, if somebody here thinks he DOES get the math behind g=GM/r2, please explain where I'm unfair in my criticism.

[nick c]

This thread was split from the "Moon's Gravity (This is another silly question)" thread here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=16106

[comingfrom]

querious, you have to read Mathis in context.
Taking one thing from one paper doesn't give you the whole picture, and the pieces can look absurd when you don't take the whole theory into account.

And calling names like bonehead and charletan do nothing for your criticisms.

g=GM/r²

Why the transform, G?
What is it transforming?

Can you answer these questions, in defense of the equation,
seeing as it is the prop behind why you feel the need to call someone a total bonehead?

Mathis answers those questions in another paper, and even explains why (as you put it) the moon and earth follow g=GM/r².
Maybe he is wrong, we await your better explanation
~Paul

[querious]

querious, you have to read Mathis in context.
Taking one thing from one paper doesn't give you the whole picture, and the pieces can look absurd when you don't take the whole theory into account.

And calling names like bonehead and charletan do nothing for your criticisms.

g=GM/r²

Why the transform, G?
What is it transforming?

Can you answer these questions, in defense of the equation,
seeing as it is the prop behind why you feel the need to call someone a total bonehead?

Mathis answers those questions in another paper, and even explains why (as you put it) the moon and earth follow g=GM/r².
Maybe he is wrong, we await your better explanation
~Paul

Why the transform "G"?

Because our units of distance and mass are based on water density, 1g=1cc, and our unit of time is just a nifty fraction of an Earth day!

What is it transforming? - Distance from a mass -----> an acceleration.

Regarding the link, What is G?, it's the worst sort of pseudoscience I've read in a long time, and just makes me more convinced I was right about Mathis.

[Aardwolf]

G is the relationship between the assumed Mass of a planet and the observed gravitational acceleration.

It is also assumed that G is a constant which forces us to derive the Mass/Density of the planets/moons etc. This makes us believe that the planets are of significantly varying densities, however, I suspect that this is total hogwash as nearly every object we have samples of, consists of the same fundamental rocks. My suspicion is that all planets/moons have negligible density differences and mass only varies by their volume, which means each body has a different G and this figure is more likely to be related to it's charge.

While I don't subscibe to evertything Mathis has to say about aspects of science, I agree with his conclusion that G is not the constant we're led to believe.

[querious]

My suspicion is that all planets/moons have negligible density differences and mass only varies by their volume, which means each body has a different G and this figure is more likely to be related to it's charge.

What about the Cavendish experiment? That still gives G with neutral bodies.

Or, think about this...
What if we connect all 4 Cavendish test masses with a fine wire, so that any residual charge would be equally distributed and of the same polarity, which causes repulsion (instead of attraction, as gravity always does).

For that reason, your idea that G is related to charge seems unsupportable to me.

[Aardwolf]

My suspicion is that all planets/moons have negligible density differences and mass only varies by their volume, which means each body has a different G and this figure is more likely to be related to it's charge.

What about the Cavendish experiment? That still gives G with neutral bodies.

What are you comparing this value of G to?