Miles Mathis

[jjohnson]

I'm hoping to see Alan Boss on YouTube kissin' Miles's ass, with the Wiki editorial staff in line behind him.
-and I don't even know him...

[junglelord]

Yes, charge and mass are two views of the same thing....think of a stop sign.
Charge is the 3-d surface area, mass is the thin 2-d side.
The stop sign is both surface and sides.
Mass and charge are the same thing.

[Grey Cloud]

I'm hoping to see Alan Boss on YouTube kissin' Miles's ass, with the Wiki editorial staff in line behind him.
-and I don't even know him...

But you'll recognise his ass?

[Grey Cloud]

For an alternative take on the T-B Law:
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4a.html
I don't have the maths to comment but would be interested in reading the thoughts of those who do.

[jjohnson]

GC - I almost wore my eyes out trying to read through the fascinating number sequences and the semi-log graphs on the spirasolaris site you linked! It gets complicated fast, almost like the old epicycles, only using logs and phi and various mathematical number series. Whoah!! But thanks. Alternative explanations welcome for review here.

Offhand I'd say Ockham would nominate Mathis's model as preferable, assuming that either one is as valid as the other. Because Miles is based on his theory's charge 'bombardment' field (E/M) and the square root of 2, and little else, it is highly mechanical in its reasoning. That appeals more to me than the "beauty" approach of the 'golden mean' and 'miraculous spiral' and 'perfect' numbers that mathematicians have twiddled with through the ages. Not to put down their mathematics at all; but the 'verse, IMHO, works on mechanical, not numeric, forces, and the numeric descriptions of those mechanics may or may not have any relationship to beautiful arithmetic ratios or other contrivances.

Mile's theory is still incomplete until it can use actual charge densities and derive them for specific bodies, along with the actual gravity acceleration, instead of using ratios only. Otherwise, it seems pretty plausible so far. Wish I had enough experience under my belt manipulating the numbers and seeing what happens to have an intuitive feel for and to be comfortable with his process.

Another thing that nibbles at me is that the planets are never fixed in one long set strung radially away from the Sun at the same time -- beads along a straight string. They constantly move and are perturbed by one another as they make their rounds in the field of the Sun, so as spirasolaris pointed out, orbital velocities are affected periodically and a rather complex dance is the result. Perhaps Miles's charge effects vary with time as a neighboring planet approaches proximity and then recedes, but overall, long term, the average radii and spacing among planets may be effectively what he says. All the orbits are elliptical, but most are very close to circular, so that may or may not be a significant upsetting factor. Whether Uranus and Saturn are on the same side of the Sun or are on opposing sides of the Sun should greatly diminish their influence upon one another, and increase the influence of others which might be increasing their interactions with one or the other. So far, of course, the point is finding a better solution of why the planets of these sizes and densities orbit where they do - it's not designed to generate a better engineering-applicable form of astrodynamics (although it might lead to some improvements in navigating between planets, saving some fuel now used for correction burns en route to achieve optimal orbital or reentry positioning).

[GaryN]

Re: MM &Titius Bode

I'm going to stick with my proposal that the charge of the planets is derived from a hollow, resonant metallic sphere passing through the magnetic field of the Sun. The mass and density of the planets will be found to be all wrong. I intend to reconstruct the planet that is now the asteroid belt (the accepted mass of the asteroid belt components would result in much too small of a solid planet for its location, confirming it must have been hollow) and to show that Miles is right with his mathematical correction of the TB rule, but incorrect on the origins of the charge.
I will also show the primary resonant frequency of each of the planets, how the planetary moons will affect the orbits, how harmonics and cymatics determine which moons will be retrograde in their orbits, and why Mars has a disorganised magnetic field and only two tiny, asteroid sized moons.
However, seeing as I flunked my Electrical Engineering schooling on the math, I expect you will have to wait another 300 years for my results.

[Theo99]

I've followed Miles' work closely for the last five years. This paper on Bode's Law is significant. It is the rational outcome of his previous work. Anyone who is skeptical needs to read all that he has written on the subject of Gravity before rushing to hasty conclusions. Finally there is a little 'buzz' regarding Miles' work. I look forward to see thoughtful criticisms of his work.

[StevenO]

Well I don't agree that Miles' article on the MM interferometer is wrong, but I do agree that Miles makes mistakes too. I think his article on the refutation of Newtons a=v^2/r formula is incorrect. First, he doesn't use his own arguments from his calculus article about banning the point from physics and second he is adding vectors of different physical dimensions (length, velocity and acceleration) because he assumes they are all on the same time interval.

I actually setup an experiment to measure the acceleration of a circular motion by measuring the acceleration of my car with a sensitive accelerometer driving my car around a roundabout at different speeds and the results confirmed Newton's formula a=v^2/r and not Miles' version of a=Vorb^2/2r.

I'm glad to hear this, since I first read his article(s) on circular motion I've been very suspicious, but again with work I didn't have the time to lay down in a methodical and logical way why he's wrong. I don't critique unless I'm dead certain, which is why I urge you to at least take another hard look at his MM article. I don't think the whole article is wrong, the particular logic path of: assume the men in the plane have the same velocity vis a vis each other and the plane, conclude that they arrive back together, therefore there is no way it could ever occur otherwise, is circular. Nobody knew a priori if two light rays had the same velocity vis a vis each other and vis a vis the emitter(s)/apparatus.

Well, it still might be my own misunderstanding about his articles on circular motion. Miles says that he uses v^2/r often, for instance in this case since the speed is measured at the wheels and calculated as 2*pi*r/t. I still have to come up with an idea to test his equations and his statement that pi=4.

I don't agree with your M/M analysis. Miles' point is that the setup of the experiment is with the expectation that the light is always going at speed c relative to the device, so logically one cannot expect a phase difference. Another way of looking at it is that one cannot logically assume a moving background.

[altonhare]

Miles' point is that the setup of the experiment is with the expectation that the light is always going at speed c relative to the device, so logically one cannot expect a phase difference. Another way of looking at it is that one cannot logically assume a moving background.

Incorrect. The setup was with the expectation that light moved at a constant speed relative to a (stationary) background. Logically one expects a phase shift in this case. This answers your last sentence, the background was assumed stationary and the device was presumed to move wrt it. Miles is in error.

[StevenO]

Miles' point is that the setup of the experiment is with the expectation that the light is always going at speed c relative to the device, so logically one cannot expect a phase difference. Another way of looking at it is that one cannot logically assume a moving background.

Incorrect. The setup was with the expectation that light moved at a constant speed relative to a (stationary) background. Logically one expects a phase shift in this case. This answers your last sentence, the background was assumed stationary and the device was presumed to move wrt it. Miles is in error.

Off course the device itself is stationary: it did not move relative to the earth during the experiment. Light was assumed to have a constant speed relative to the ether and the movement of the earth relative to the ether was assumed to cause a varying amount of "ether drag". This was expected to show up as a phase difference when sending light into different directions. However if you analyze it you will find that the speed added to c when sending a light wave with the "ether wind" outgoing would be compensated by the speed subtracted from c when the light wave is returning against the "ether wind".

[webolife]

Hmmm... expanding matter, no... not my view.
Mass is a description of the compression of matter in my view.
Light is an expression of the compression of the field of a particular bit of matter.
In this way, gravitation, voltage, light, etc. all manifest as outcomes of the unified centropic field.

[altonhare]

However if you analyze it you will find that the speed added to c when sending a light wave with the "ether wind" outgoing would be compensated by the speed subtracted from c when the light wave is returning against the "ether wind".

But not if the light travels transversely to the direction of motion of the detector wrt the presumed aether. Hence fringe effect.

[webolife]

I get the "fringe" spectra from transverse action, without motion or aether.

[junglelord]

Yes, many people do come to the conclusion that aether is not needed, but that does not disprove Aether.

[StevenO]

However if you analyze it you will find that the speed added to c when sending a light wave with the "ether wind" outgoing would be compensated by the speed subtracted from c when the light wave is returning against the "ether wind".

But not if the light travels transversely to the direction of motion of the detector wrt the presumed aether. Hence fringe effect.

Nope. One cannot detect light that goes transversely wrt. to the presumed aether since that would not return to the same location. One will detect the light that went our under the right angle to be reflected back to the detector. The speedup during the outgoing path is again compensated by the slowdown during the incoming path. No fringe.