Miles just posted (maybe in the last day or two) his first simulation of how he envisions a photon's motion, both its internal rotation, and the path followed through space by its center. The latter looks a little like a cycloid, only the path is not cusped at the low point, it looks like a curve reversal with a radius minimum at that point. Anyway, it is an interesting step for Miles. He also has a new theory of why our planetary system is potentially unstable and speculates that his Unified Field concept may help make it more stable than pure gravitationally bound orbits.
Miles notes that gravity alone can't create resonances, but I'll have to chide him on that since binary star orbits, even with a planet throw in, seem to be nothing but resonances.
Miles Mathis
-
jjohnson
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
- Location: Thurston County WA
-
StevenO
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Re: Miles Mathis
Except in this case we are talking about a photon, not an electron! There is 7 levels of spin in between these. APM needs to go back to the drawing board, like I told youjunglelord wrote:Yes, thats APM again, it has both toroidal and spherical qualites and is actually both at the same time.If we measured that across a time interval that allowed the photon to form that torus and complete a revolution of the top axial spin it would appear like a sphere.
EM is Torodial, ES is Spherical, expanding and contracting, as a torodial increases, the spherical decrease and vica versa....which makes sense with your plots.
Thats the APM model in terms of the electron being a dual bipolar unit.
Amazing how much things agree.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
-
StevenO
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Miles drops a bomb
Miles Mathis is now focused on explaining the solar system orbits and perturbations from his Unified Theory. The planetary orbits prove to be deterministic, resonances can be explained from the base E/M photon fields.
He just dropped a bomb today by showing how the axial tilt of the planets follows from the suns and planets charge fields. He even quotes Velikovski as being probably more right than mainstream!
Just read and shiver. Is'nt it time we start to throw back some of this stuff at the mainstream?
The Cause of Axial Tilt
by Miles Mathis
Abstract: By doing simple calculations on Mercury, Uranus, and the Earth, I will show that the tilts are easily calculable from perturbations, and that these perturbations can be calculated from only three numbers: mass, density, and distance. This will overthrow the entire history of Celestial Mechanics.
Here we have yet another example of extreme negligence by the mainstream. This problem, like a thousand others, is passed over as uninteresting, while we aim our telescopes at the edge of the universe and conjecture extensively about the first few seconds after the Bang. It would appear that real problems, close at hand, are too difficult, and we must misdirect all attention into the esoteric and arcane, billions of light years beyond our data and understanding.
If you do a websearch on this question, as I recently did, you find that the answer is “a collision.” Yes, it is thought that all the planets gained their various tilts by accidental collisions in the distant past. That answer is so gloriously lazy and uninspired that at first I could not believe it. I thought that perhaps I had arrived at the Flat Earth PR page, and was reading another hedge from the hedge. But no, this is apparently as good as we can do on this one. It is somewhat like finding a squashed highway cone in the street and assuming it grew there that way.
It may be that the reason mainstream physics has never even tried to solve this one is that it doesn't have the tools to do so. Although the problem doesn't seem that difficult, on the face of it, it does require you to have a few cards in your hand, a few broad ideas in your head. One of those broad ideas is the E/M field, which the mainstream has never had in its celestial mechanical hand. True, the mainstream knows that the tilt is the tilt of an axis, and they know that the axis seems to have something to do with the E/M field of the body, but they don't know that distant bodies can effect eachother via that same E/M field. Not so long ago, they didn't even know about magnetospheres and plasmas. Now they will admit that the near environs of a body can be affected by E/M fields, but they still resist letting that field permeate the Solar System. Why? Because if the E/M field got involved in perturbations, several major fields of enterprise would tremble at their very cores. Perturbation theory and chaos theory would be in danger of ultimate extinction, and gravity theory would have to be overhauled from the foundation. These astrophysicists would also have to admit that Velikovsky was at least partially right, and they would rather tear out their own eyeballs and eat them than go there.
Well, it is all very sad, I am sure, but the winds will blow and the grass will grow. I have shown that Newton's and Kepler's own equations contain the E/M field, in very simple form, and always have. This means that the mainstream physicists can keep their prized equations, but they will have to re-adjust their belts in some rather conspicuous ways. The unified field they have sought for a century was hiding in plain sight, and it will be an eternal embarrassment to generations of ghosts to have missed it, and to have looked for it in strings and bosons and dark matter and so on.
This E/M field is the card I had in my hand that allowed me to see through the tilt question immediately. You only have to look at a few lists of numbers to get a feel for the solution. Let us list the actual tilts of the eight planets, then list masses relative to the Earth, then list the relative distances between planets, with Mercury's distance as 1.
0.01 0.05 1
2.6 0.82 0.86
23.4 1 0.71
25 0.11 1.33
3 318 9.5
26 95 11.3
97 14.5 22.7
28 17.1 28
The first thing we see is that we have four planets within a few percentage points of one another. The Earth, Mars, Saturn, and Neptune all have similar tilts. That is unlikely to be a coincidence. If we measure those four tilts relative to the Sun's equator, instead of relative to their individual orbits, the numbers are even closer, being 30.55, 30.65, 31.51, and 34.4. Another big clue is Mercury, with no tilt. And the final big clue is Uranus, with a near 90o degree tilt.
Let's start with Mercury. Like all other planets, Mercury has bodies on both sides of it. On one side, we have the Sun; on the other side, Venus. Because the Sun is so huge, it overwhelms all other influences. So we may treat Mercury as perturbed only by the Sun, in the first instance. Mercury orbits very near the Sun's equator, at an inclination of only 3 degrees, 4 degrees closer than the Earth. Mercury is also furthest from the invariable plane, and this proves again that it is influenced more by the Sun and less by Jupiter and the other planets, as would be expected. But it must be influenced by the charge or E/M field, in this case. Mercury is matching its tilt and inclination to the Sun, and in doing so it is matching itself to the ambient E/M field, not the gravity field. The gravity field has no mechanism for influencing Mercury's tilt or inclination, since it is all the same to gravity whether Mercury orbits east-west or north-south. The field equations of Kepler, Newton, Laplace, and Einstein all fail to provide a mechanism for tilt or inclination, which is precisely why current astrophysicists still give tilt and inclination to accident or collision.
In a moment I will show exactly how the charge field (which I have shown underlies E/M) causes this phenomenon, but for now let us just look at the effect. I propose that a body that is perturbed by a charge field from only one direction will have no tilt, and that a body that is perturbed equally from two opposing directions will have a tilt of 90o. Tilts in between are caused by uneven forces, and may be calculated from the sizes of the forces.
Just to be clear, I am proposing new perturbation theory. Below, I will solve multiple-body problems by calculating real mechanical forces upon those bodies. This will be the first serious mechanical work done on the field since Laplace “perfected” Newton's equations 230 years ago. Because Laplace's equations were so successful as a heuristic model, no one has bothered to try to prove that he was completely wrong, as a matter of mechanics. Yes, Laplace's equations are celestial math, not celestial mechanics. Neither Laplace, nor for that matter Newton or Kepler, ever did any celestial mechanics. And no one has done any since then. Conversely, my equations below will be shown to be fully mechanical. My charge field cause forces by bombardment. That is, particles must touch. There are no attractions and no forces at a distance, not in the gravity part of the unified field and not in the charge part of the unified field. The entire unified field is mechanical, and resolves to motion and contact. All equations are explained and underpinned, and all the math is simple and transparent.
So, back to Mercury. In this case, Mercury has almost no tilt because the Sun overwhelms the field coming from the other direction. We can even do a bit of rough math here. Mercury's tilt+inclination relative to the Sun's equator is about 3.39o, which is 3.76% of 90o. The mass of the rest of the Solar System is about .134% of the Sun's mass, and the weighted distance of the mass is about 23 times the distance of Mercury.
23 x .134% = 3.1%
That is why Mercury is tilted. The Sun is 97% of the effect, so Mercury can tilt only 3%.
<...>
Full article can be found here: The Cause of Axial Tilt
He just dropped a bomb today by showing how the axial tilt of the planets follows from the suns and planets charge fields. He even quotes Velikovski as being probably more right than mainstream!
Just read and shiver. Is'nt it time we start to throw back some of this stuff at the mainstream?
The Cause of Axial Tilt
by Miles Mathis
Abstract: By doing simple calculations on Mercury, Uranus, and the Earth, I will show that the tilts are easily calculable from perturbations, and that these perturbations can be calculated from only three numbers: mass, density, and distance. This will overthrow the entire history of Celestial Mechanics.
Here we have yet another example of extreme negligence by the mainstream. This problem, like a thousand others, is passed over as uninteresting, while we aim our telescopes at the edge of the universe and conjecture extensively about the first few seconds after the Bang. It would appear that real problems, close at hand, are too difficult, and we must misdirect all attention into the esoteric and arcane, billions of light years beyond our data and understanding.
If you do a websearch on this question, as I recently did, you find that the answer is “a collision.” Yes, it is thought that all the planets gained their various tilts by accidental collisions in the distant past. That answer is so gloriously lazy and uninspired that at first I could not believe it. I thought that perhaps I had arrived at the Flat Earth PR page, and was reading another hedge from the hedge. But no, this is apparently as good as we can do on this one. It is somewhat like finding a squashed highway cone in the street and assuming it grew there that way.
It may be that the reason mainstream physics has never even tried to solve this one is that it doesn't have the tools to do so. Although the problem doesn't seem that difficult, on the face of it, it does require you to have a few cards in your hand, a few broad ideas in your head. One of those broad ideas is the E/M field, which the mainstream has never had in its celestial mechanical hand. True, the mainstream knows that the tilt is the tilt of an axis, and they know that the axis seems to have something to do with the E/M field of the body, but they don't know that distant bodies can effect eachother via that same E/M field. Not so long ago, they didn't even know about magnetospheres and plasmas. Now they will admit that the near environs of a body can be affected by E/M fields, but they still resist letting that field permeate the Solar System. Why? Because if the E/M field got involved in perturbations, several major fields of enterprise would tremble at their very cores. Perturbation theory and chaos theory would be in danger of ultimate extinction, and gravity theory would have to be overhauled from the foundation. These astrophysicists would also have to admit that Velikovsky was at least partially right, and they would rather tear out their own eyeballs and eat them than go there.
Well, it is all very sad, I am sure, but the winds will blow and the grass will grow. I have shown that Newton's and Kepler's own equations contain the E/M field, in very simple form, and always have. This means that the mainstream physicists can keep their prized equations, but they will have to re-adjust their belts in some rather conspicuous ways. The unified field they have sought for a century was hiding in plain sight, and it will be an eternal embarrassment to generations of ghosts to have missed it, and to have looked for it in strings and bosons and dark matter and so on.
This E/M field is the card I had in my hand that allowed me to see through the tilt question immediately. You only have to look at a few lists of numbers to get a feel for the solution. Let us list the actual tilts of the eight planets, then list masses relative to the Earth, then list the relative distances between planets, with Mercury's distance as 1.
0.01 0.05 1
2.6 0.82 0.86
23.4 1 0.71
25 0.11 1.33
3 318 9.5
26 95 11.3
97 14.5 22.7
28 17.1 28
The first thing we see is that we have four planets within a few percentage points of one another. The Earth, Mars, Saturn, and Neptune all have similar tilts. That is unlikely to be a coincidence. If we measure those four tilts relative to the Sun's equator, instead of relative to their individual orbits, the numbers are even closer, being 30.55, 30.65, 31.51, and 34.4. Another big clue is Mercury, with no tilt. And the final big clue is Uranus, with a near 90o degree tilt.
Let's start with Mercury. Like all other planets, Mercury has bodies on both sides of it. On one side, we have the Sun; on the other side, Venus. Because the Sun is so huge, it overwhelms all other influences. So we may treat Mercury as perturbed only by the Sun, in the first instance. Mercury orbits very near the Sun's equator, at an inclination of only 3 degrees, 4 degrees closer than the Earth. Mercury is also furthest from the invariable plane, and this proves again that it is influenced more by the Sun and less by Jupiter and the other planets, as would be expected. But it must be influenced by the charge or E/M field, in this case. Mercury is matching its tilt and inclination to the Sun, and in doing so it is matching itself to the ambient E/M field, not the gravity field. The gravity field has no mechanism for influencing Mercury's tilt or inclination, since it is all the same to gravity whether Mercury orbits east-west or north-south. The field equations of Kepler, Newton, Laplace, and Einstein all fail to provide a mechanism for tilt or inclination, which is precisely why current astrophysicists still give tilt and inclination to accident or collision.
In a moment I will show exactly how the charge field (which I have shown underlies E/M) causes this phenomenon, but for now let us just look at the effect. I propose that a body that is perturbed by a charge field from only one direction will have no tilt, and that a body that is perturbed equally from two opposing directions will have a tilt of 90o. Tilts in between are caused by uneven forces, and may be calculated from the sizes of the forces.
Just to be clear, I am proposing new perturbation theory. Below, I will solve multiple-body problems by calculating real mechanical forces upon those bodies. This will be the first serious mechanical work done on the field since Laplace “perfected” Newton's equations 230 years ago. Because Laplace's equations were so successful as a heuristic model, no one has bothered to try to prove that he was completely wrong, as a matter of mechanics. Yes, Laplace's equations are celestial math, not celestial mechanics. Neither Laplace, nor for that matter Newton or Kepler, ever did any celestial mechanics. And no one has done any since then. Conversely, my equations below will be shown to be fully mechanical. My charge field cause forces by bombardment. That is, particles must touch. There are no attractions and no forces at a distance, not in the gravity part of the unified field and not in the charge part of the unified field. The entire unified field is mechanical, and resolves to motion and contact. All equations are explained and underpinned, and all the math is simple and transparent.
So, back to Mercury. In this case, Mercury has almost no tilt because the Sun overwhelms the field coming from the other direction. We can even do a bit of rough math here. Mercury's tilt+inclination relative to the Sun's equator is about 3.39o, which is 3.76% of 90o. The mass of the rest of the Solar System is about .134% of the Sun's mass, and the weighted distance of the mass is about 23 times the distance of Mercury.
23 x .134% = 3.1%
That is why Mercury is tilted. The Sun is 97% of the effect, so Mercury can tilt only 3%.
<...>
Full article can be found here: The Cause of Axial Tilt
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
-
junglelord
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Miles drops a bomb
Thats totally makes sense. Thanks Steven.
Miles is on one incredible roll.
I hope the powers that be are taking notice.
Miles is on one incredible roll.
I hope the powers that be are taking notice.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
-
junglelord
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Miles Mathis
Photons and electrons....they are the same thing.
One is just slowed down....or the alternative is that a photon, is an electron expanding at the speed of light.
If I am wrong on that, can you take me to the next level Steven?
Thanks.
One is just slowed down....or the alternative is that a photon, is an electron expanding at the speed of light.
If I am wrong on that, can you take me to the next level Steven?
Thanks.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
-
Grey Cloud
- Posts: 2477
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
- Location: NW UK
Re: Miles drops a bomb
Hi Steven,
Thanks, very interesting indeed.
Thanks, very interesting indeed.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
-
Grey Cloud
- Posts: 2477
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
- Location: NW UK
Re: Miles drops a bomb
Hi Steven,
Just finished reading the full article. The maths was well beyond me but I think I understand what he is saying and I like it very much.
[I was going to PM you with this but you have it disabled, so here goes...]
Would it be possible, using Mathis' maths, to work out the arrangement of the Solar system if the Earth's tilt was zero? In other words, for the Earth to rotate vertically on its axis, what arrangement of the planets would be required?
Would that be a relatively simple thing for you, or maybe JL to work out?
From what I understand of the article, if the Earth is tilted to the left then it would require slightly less pull from the left and slightly more from the right to get the Earth vertical. An obvious question, in the context of this website, is what would happen if Venus and Mars to to exchange places? What would be the effect on the Earth? Or, how much larger would Mars have to be in order to 'correct' Earth's tilt?
I'm more or less guessing but I think that if Saturn was involved, its influence would be too great(?).
Another question concerns the asteroid belt. What size of planet would be required to occupy that orbit in order for the Earth to be vertical?
Just finished reading the full article. The maths was well beyond me but I think I understand what he is saying and I like it very much.
[I was going to PM you with this but you have it disabled, so here goes...]
Would it be possible, using Mathis' maths, to work out the arrangement of the Solar system if the Earth's tilt was zero? In other words, for the Earth to rotate vertically on its axis, what arrangement of the planets would be required?
Would that be a relatively simple thing for you, or maybe JL to work out?
From what I understand of the article, if the Earth is tilted to the left then it would require slightly less pull from the left and slightly more from the right to get the Earth vertical. An obvious question, in the context of this website, is what would happen if Venus and Mars to to exchange places? What would be the effect on the Earth? Or, how much larger would Mars have to be in order to 'correct' Earth's tilt?
I'm more or less guessing but I think that if Saturn was involved, its influence would be too great(?).
Another question concerns the asteroid belt. What size of planet would be required to occupy that orbit in order for the Earth to be vertical?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
-
GaryN
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
- Location: Sooke, BC, Canada
Re: Miles Mathis
I really admire what Miles has done with the back end in his mechanism, but I'm going to have the audacity to chuck out the front end altogether, along with the mass and density of the Sun and all the planets. I'll replace it with charge derived from charge accumulation by true E/M means.
I'll start With the Sun.
Now, the Sun is an almost perfect sphere, not an oblate spheroid as we should see if the Sun is a big ball of Hydrogen of the proposed mass, rotating at the assessed speed. Instead, he has to look at the model of the Sun as the charge accumulator, accumulation occurring within the confines of a spherical field produced by a '2-dipoles-and-a-loop' antenna. Under Miles model the planets are the standard solid masses, whereas they are in fact multi-layer, hollow centered metallic spheres, capable of their own charge accumulation though an induced dipole/loop(torus) mechanism.
The Birkeland solar model can be confirmed with this approach, and offers an explanation for magnetism within the solar sphere of influence. The non-permanent iron crust 'condensing' at the inner shell boundary is emitting the energies to which all external iron atoms will be resonant. We can also get rid of O.Manuels star relic core too.
I 'feel' as kevin would say, that the Sun has actually a 4 dipole and 2 loop/torus configuration, but perhaps someone qualified in antenna engineering could provide resolution.(Or tell me I'm nuts!)
I'll start With the Sun.
Now, the Sun is an almost perfect sphere, not an oblate spheroid as we should see if the Sun is a big ball of Hydrogen of the proposed mass, rotating at the assessed speed. Instead, he has to look at the model of the Sun as the charge accumulator, accumulation occurring within the confines of a spherical field produced by a '2-dipoles-and-a-loop' antenna. Under Miles model the planets are the standard solid masses, whereas they are in fact multi-layer, hollow centered metallic spheres, capable of their own charge accumulation though an induced dipole/loop(torus) mechanism.
The Birkeland solar model can be confirmed with this approach, and offers an explanation for magnetism within the solar sphere of influence. The non-permanent iron crust 'condensing' at the inner shell boundary is emitting the energies to which all external iron atoms will be resonant. We can also get rid of O.Manuels star relic core too.
I 'feel' as kevin would say, that the Sun has actually a 4 dipole and 2 loop/torus configuration, but perhaps someone qualified in antenna engineering could provide resolution.(Or tell me I'm nuts!)
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
-
jjohnson
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
- Location: Thurston County WA
Re: Miles drops a bomb
Miles just dropped me a line noting that he is making some corrections to his math in this paper. If you find it's gone missing, he said he'll re-post it when he finishes up.
-
Nevyn
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: Miles Mathis
I have added motion to my app now. Here are some videos showing the Y:Z at 20:1 ratio with motion in the X, Y and Z directions. This ratio is what produced the torus shape.
http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y20_Z1_M_in_Z.avi (4.7Mb)
http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y20_Z1_M_in_X.avi (4.3Mb)
http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y20_Z1_M_in_Y.avi (4.1Mb)
The motion in Z is the most interesting as it produces a 3D wave. The velocity is not very fast. A faster velocity would stretch out the phase of the wave, slower compress it. When viewing it from the X or Y axis (top-right and bottom-right), you can see that as the amplitude gets smaller, the phase gets larger. Then as the amplitude grows, the phase shrinks. This is caused by the Y spin level. If you hold your mouse over the bottom-right view, directly below the green axis in the top-right view as the movie plays, you will see that the photon speeds up and slows down as it moves along the Z (blue) axis.
Questions:
Does this help explain why we think light is quantized? If we can only measure the larger amplitude parts of the wave, it would appear to come in little packets.
Does this have any connection to synchrotron radiation? This is the first thing that came to my mind as I watched the motion in Z. If you think of the particle as an electron with that motion, it would be radiating photons in all directions as it progresses that path. At the larger amplitude sections, the motion is slower, causing more radiation at those points on the wave.
http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y20_Z1_M_in_Z.avi (4.7Mb)
http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y20_Z1_M_in_X.avi (4.3Mb)
http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y20_Z1_M_in_Y.avi (4.1Mb)
The motion in Z is the most interesting as it produces a 3D wave. The velocity is not very fast. A faster velocity would stretch out the phase of the wave, slower compress it. When viewing it from the X or Y axis (top-right and bottom-right), you can see that as the amplitude gets smaller, the phase gets larger. Then as the amplitude grows, the phase shrinks. This is caused by the Y spin level. If you hold your mouse over the bottom-right view, directly below the green axis in the top-right view as the movie plays, you will see that the photon speeds up and slows down as it moves along the Z (blue) axis.
Questions:
Does this help explain why we think light is quantized? If we can only measure the larger amplitude parts of the wave, it would appear to come in little packets.
Does this have any connection to synchrotron radiation? This is the first thing that came to my mind as I watched the motion in Z. If you think of the particle as an electron with that motion, it would be radiating photons in all directions as it progresses that path. At the larger amplitude sections, the motion is slower, causing more radiation at those points on the wave.
-
StevenO
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Re: Miles Mathis
I think this quote from MM sums it up:junglelord wrote:Photons and electrons....they are the same thing.
One is just slowed down....or the alternative is that a photon, is an electron expanding at the speed of light.
If I am wrong on that, can you take me to the next level Steven?
Thanks.
MM wrote:1) The mediating photons of charge are not virtual or “messenger.” There is no attraction. All charge is repulsive. Charge is mediated by B-photons, by straight bombardment. Not all particles must have charge, since not all particles must emit B-photons. Among particles with charge, this charge is a function of surface area. Therefore if we give the proton a charge of 1, the electron no longer has a charge of -1. It has a charge of about 1/1836 or .000545. The B-photon is also not mass-less and is not point-like. It has a calculable mass and radius, both of which are about G (6.67 x 10^-11) times the mass and radius of the proton. That is, the B-photon is eight million times smaller than the electron
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
-
Lloyd
- Posts: 4433
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
Re: Miles drops a bomb
* At the end of this post I want to comment on the following excerpt.
- So, back to Mercury. In this case, Mercury has almost no tilt because the Sun overwhelms the field coming from the other direction. We can even do a bit of rough math here. Mercury's tilt+inclination relative to the Sun's equator is about 3.39o, which is 3.76% of 90o. The mass of the rest of the Solar System is about .134% of the Sun's mass, and the average distance of the mass is about 23 times the distance of Mercury.
23 x .134% = 3.1%
- That is why Mercury is tilted. The Sun is 97% of the effect, so Mercury can tilt only 3%. That is very rough math, since you have to calculate each perturbation separately, but it gets us started.
- You will say, “Good Lord, shouldn't you have divided by 23 rather multiplied? The planets are further away from Mercury than the Sun. Surely the charge diminishes with distance? In other papers, you show the charge field diminishing by 1/R4.” Yes, I show that when the charge field leaves a given spherical body, it diminishes by that rate. But that is not what is happening here. The charge field of the Solar System has to be taken as one spherical field. Imagine that the Solar System is one big ball. When charge is emitted out from the center of that ball, it diminishes. When it is emitted toward the center, it increases. The entire field is defined by the Sun, and shaped by the Sun, so the radial lines of the main field come out from the Sun. If that is true, then the field lines get closer together as you get nearer the Sun. When field lines get closer together, the field gains density. Therefore, the effects of outer planets on inner planets are relatively greater than the effects of inner planets on outer ones. One way to look at this is to recognize that inner planets are emitting out into larger shells. The surface area and volume of these shells increases with increasing distance from the Sun, so the charge field loses density for that reason. But in the reverse case, the charge field density must increase, because the outer planets, when perturbing inner planets, are emitting into a smaller orbits and smaller shells. ...
- Now you will say, “But you didn't square or quadruple your effect. If the density increases as we go in, shouldn't it follow a square law, at least? How can you just multiply by 23?” Once again, you can't just follow equations, you have to follow mechanics. Yes, the charge field will square because we are going to smaller surface areas, but we are still in the gravity field, too. We are in both simultaneously: the unified field. You can't go toward or away from a gravity field, in this case. You are either in one or you are not. Gravity is still the inverse square (relative to the charge field), and the charge field is now squared, since we are moving in. So the two together cancel, giving us a field that simply increases with distance. If we follow the charge field out from the Sun, we use 1/R4. If we follow the charge field in, we use 1/R. I will solve another pair of perturbations, to show this in more detail.
* Thornhill et al have often mentioned that Birkeland filaments, as in space, attract in proportion to the inverse of the distance, instead of the inverse of the distance squared. So has Miles proved EU theory here? And has he provided a mathematical formula in support of EU theory? Looks like it to me, but my analytical abilities are very limited [at least most of the time].
- So, back to Mercury. In this case, Mercury has almost no tilt because the Sun overwhelms the field coming from the other direction. We can even do a bit of rough math here. Mercury's tilt+inclination relative to the Sun's equator is about 3.39o, which is 3.76% of 90o. The mass of the rest of the Solar System is about .134% of the Sun's mass, and the average distance of the mass is about 23 times the distance of Mercury.
23 x .134% = 3.1%
- That is why Mercury is tilted. The Sun is 97% of the effect, so Mercury can tilt only 3%. That is very rough math, since you have to calculate each perturbation separately, but it gets us started.
- You will say, “Good Lord, shouldn't you have divided by 23 rather multiplied? The planets are further away from Mercury than the Sun. Surely the charge diminishes with distance? In other papers, you show the charge field diminishing by 1/R4.” Yes, I show that when the charge field leaves a given spherical body, it diminishes by that rate. But that is not what is happening here. The charge field of the Solar System has to be taken as one spherical field. Imagine that the Solar System is one big ball. When charge is emitted out from the center of that ball, it diminishes. When it is emitted toward the center, it increases. The entire field is defined by the Sun, and shaped by the Sun, so the radial lines of the main field come out from the Sun. If that is true, then the field lines get closer together as you get nearer the Sun. When field lines get closer together, the field gains density. Therefore, the effects of outer planets on inner planets are relatively greater than the effects of inner planets on outer ones. One way to look at this is to recognize that inner planets are emitting out into larger shells. The surface area and volume of these shells increases with increasing distance from the Sun, so the charge field loses density for that reason. But in the reverse case, the charge field density must increase, because the outer planets, when perturbing inner planets, are emitting into a smaller orbits and smaller shells. ...
- Now you will say, “But you didn't square or quadruple your effect. If the density increases as we go in, shouldn't it follow a square law, at least? How can you just multiply by 23?” Once again, you can't just follow equations, you have to follow mechanics. Yes, the charge field will square because we are going to smaller surface areas, but we are still in the gravity field, too. We are in both simultaneously: the unified field. You can't go toward or away from a gravity field, in this case. You are either in one or you are not. Gravity is still the inverse square (relative to the charge field), and the charge field is now squared, since we are moving in. So the two together cancel, giving us a field that simply increases with distance. If we follow the charge field out from the Sun, we use 1/R4. If we follow the charge field in, we use 1/R. I will solve another pair of perturbations, to show this in more detail.
* Thornhill et al have often mentioned that Birkeland filaments, as in space, attract in proportion to the inverse of the distance, instead of the inverse of the distance squared. So has Miles proved EU theory here? And has he provided a mathematical formula in support of EU theory? Looks like it to me, but my analytical abilities are very limited [at least most of the time].
-
jjohnson
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
- Location: Thurston County WA
Re: Miles drops a bomb
Miles wrote that he has re-posted his paper on planetary tilts with his corrected math. Might be worth a re-read, especially if you have started out with pencil and paper or Excel to see what you can do with it.
He may or may not have helped the EU cause with this, but we need to come together and do some analysis to see if it is helpful. It certainly is interesting, but that's only half the fun.
In acoustics (stay awake now!) the radiation of sound in terms of how quickly its loudness (actually, it's sound pressure level expressed in decibels referenced to a reference level, which is routine decibel notation) is dependent on the size and shape of the emitter, assuming it radiates fairly equally at the source. If it is a point source radiating into a sphere of free space, it falls off inversely as distance squared - think of the expanding spherical surface example widely quoted for E/M radiation from, say a star. If it is an extended ("infinite or extremely long") straight line source, it falls off inversely with distance. If it is a large rectangular radiating surface (compared with the largest wavelength being considered) its falloff rate is even less than that of a straight line of the length or height of the rectangle. Sound is a wave phenomenon, similar to E/M radiation or gravity. I am not sure I agree that gravity IS waves, but it falls off with distance as if it were.)
What appears to govern the radiation falloff with distance is whether, to the observer, it appears to be a very small ("point") source, or a long but negligibly high radiator ("line") source, or a source with resolvable dimensions subtended in two directions. The falloff rate can vary between these rates by varying the exponent of the distance from zero to some higher value than 2. Newton treats gravity as if it were always emanating from a point source (the CG, obviously). However, if one is close to the source of gravity, and it subtends a large segment of one's filed of view of it, its gravity field should not be falling off at that point as fast as 1 over r squared. (Look it up: inside a hollow sphere, there is NO effective gravity, while inside a sphere, the gravity increases from zero at the center to local gravity at the surface, which is linear with distance from the center. The effective gravity might be, but Miles's Unified Field combination of gravitic attraction and b-field repulsion might be able to 'splain that.
If one is right inside a Birkeland current, a light year in diameter, say, or not too far from its near "side", than E/M field strength should not fall off significantly at all until it becomes small enough in the observer's view to show a vertical dimension to the current-as-source of field. As the observer moves farther away, the field should begin to fall off more quickly with distance, approaching the 1/r condition. If the Birkeland filament looks to the observer like it runs forever along its axial length, that limits its fall-off rate to 1/r as you integrate received field strength from each dL along its length . As there is little effective gravitating mass in one place in such a filament line-source, its strength is negligible in the presence of the electromagnetic field. All this is NOT very similar to the 2-part field emitted by a source of matter such as a star or a planet or moon. It is a line source of electromagnetic field influence and as such has to fall off as 1/r. If the filament were only 10 LY long, at some large distance the observer would see it as a rectangular source with L = 10 and H = 1, and its falloff rate would begin to increase toward 1/r^2 as this shrinking rectangle became smaller and smaller and eventually approximated a point source.
What is interesting by Miles is that in this paper he talks about planets' having equal subtended discs as "seen" by the Sun. That has a distinct bearing on the falloff rate of the combined field received over the surface of those disks. Take a surface of one square meter on the - oh, the photosphere, or at the "accepted radius of the Sun. If you draw radii from the center of the Sun to each corner of that square, the solid angle subtended will be very narrow if the Sun's radius is very large in comparison, and it will be very big if the Sun's radius is very short, meaning that the gravity and b-field radiated radially through the square meter varies inversely with the radius of the radiating body (Sun). The gravity field from a small body will thus weaken with distance much quicker than if that field were radiating from a square meter of a larger body with a much narrower, almost collimated radial angle into space. That is why gravity varies proportionally with with radius. Oddly enough. I'm still working though how the two component fields balance, and how such balance is accomplished with planets at different orbital radii. It's too early to be finished up, and anyone who wants can jump in with Miles and me and see if some useful rules can be developed to help us see how these fields interact in an intuitive, easily calculated way.
J
He may or may not have helped the EU cause with this, but we need to come together and do some analysis to see if it is helpful. It certainly is interesting, but that's only half the fun.
In acoustics (stay awake now!) the radiation of sound in terms of how quickly its loudness (actually, it's sound pressure level expressed in decibels referenced to a reference level, which is routine decibel notation) is dependent on the size and shape of the emitter, assuming it radiates fairly equally at the source. If it is a point source radiating into a sphere of free space, it falls off inversely as distance squared - think of the expanding spherical surface example widely quoted for E/M radiation from, say a star. If it is an extended ("infinite or extremely long") straight line source, it falls off inversely with distance. If it is a large rectangular radiating surface (compared with the largest wavelength being considered) its falloff rate is even less than that of a straight line of the length or height of the rectangle. Sound is a wave phenomenon, similar to E/M radiation or gravity. I am not sure I agree that gravity IS waves, but it falls off with distance as if it were.)
What appears to govern the radiation falloff with distance is whether, to the observer, it appears to be a very small ("point") source, or a long but negligibly high radiator ("line") source, or a source with resolvable dimensions subtended in two directions. The falloff rate can vary between these rates by varying the exponent of the distance from zero to some higher value than 2. Newton treats gravity as if it were always emanating from a point source (the CG, obviously). However, if one is close to the source of gravity, and it subtends a large segment of one's filed of view of it, its gravity field should not be falling off at that point as fast as 1 over r squared. (Look it up: inside a hollow sphere, there is NO effective gravity, while inside a sphere, the gravity increases from zero at the center to local gravity at the surface, which is linear with distance from the center. The effective gravity might be, but Miles's Unified Field combination of gravitic attraction and b-field repulsion might be able to 'splain that.
If one is right inside a Birkeland current, a light year in diameter, say, or not too far from its near "side", than E/M field strength should not fall off significantly at all until it becomes small enough in the observer's view to show a vertical dimension to the current-as-source of field. As the observer moves farther away, the field should begin to fall off more quickly with distance, approaching the 1/r condition. If the Birkeland filament looks to the observer like it runs forever along its axial length, that limits its fall-off rate to 1/r as you integrate received field strength from each dL along its length . As there is little effective gravitating mass in one place in such a filament line-source, its strength is negligible in the presence of the electromagnetic field. All this is NOT very similar to the 2-part field emitted by a source of matter such as a star or a planet or moon. It is a line source of electromagnetic field influence and as such has to fall off as 1/r. If the filament were only 10 LY long, at some large distance the observer would see it as a rectangular source with L = 10 and H = 1, and its falloff rate would begin to increase toward 1/r^2 as this shrinking rectangle became smaller and smaller and eventually approximated a point source.
What is interesting by Miles is that in this paper he talks about planets' having equal subtended discs as "seen" by the Sun. That has a distinct bearing on the falloff rate of the combined field received over the surface of those disks. Take a surface of one square meter on the - oh, the photosphere, or at the "accepted radius of the Sun. If you draw radii from the center of the Sun to each corner of that square, the solid angle subtended will be very narrow if the Sun's radius is very large in comparison, and it will be very big if the Sun's radius is very short, meaning that the gravity and b-field radiated radially through the square meter varies inversely with the radius of the radiating body (Sun). The gravity field from a small body will thus weaken with distance much quicker than if that field were radiating from a square meter of a larger body with a much narrower, almost collimated radial angle into space. That is why gravity varies proportionally with with radius. Oddly enough. I'm still working though how the two component fields balance, and how such balance is accomplished with planets at different orbital radii. It's too early to be finished up, and anyone who wants can jump in with Miles and me and see if some useful rules can be developed to help us see how these fields interact in an intuitive, easily calculated way.
J
-
seasmith
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: Miles drops a bomb
~
jjohnson wrote:
Could you be a little more specific on just what you are looking for here ?
Thanks,
s
jjohnson wrote:
Hi jj,... still working though how the two component fields balance, and how such balance is accomplished with planets at different orbital radii.
Could you be a little more specific on just what you are looking for here ?
Thanks,
s
-
jjohnson
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
- Location: Thurston County WA
Re: Miles drops a bomb
I am interested in seeing if and how the E/M fields tend to help buffer the interactions among the bodies in the solar system. Miles started out with his paper on why Mercury has to be orbiting right where it is. Later on he noted that it doesn't seem to him like the other planets are orbiting right where they want to be, yet he wonders if the repulsion part of the unified fields nonetheless ends up with a more stable long term orbital situation than if everything were controlled only by gravity.
An interesting simulation might be to see if planets can collide if they approach each other, substituting the UF mechanics for the Newtonian ones. My mental image is of those bump'em cars at the carnival with the big rubber bumpers to slow down and deflect the collisions among the drivers. It seems like the E/M force might act like a variable spring, getting stiffer (greater repulsive forces applied by the two bodies) the closer the encounter. (An example of a variable spring would be a thin steel bar pinned to a curved cylindrical surface and cantilevered off it, perpendicular to the cylinder's long axis - sort of like a diving board. As the bar is pressed down, it starts to wrap against the cylinder, and progressive deflection shortens the length of the bar, making the remaining cantilever stiffer. This is different from a coiled steel spring, which (in its elastic range, anyway) exhibits a constant force against an impressed compressive, or tensile, force, regardless of deflection. -At least until the coils actually touch each other, a state called "going solid". I'm just wondering if the variable spring analogy works for the E/M forces or if gravity remains in the driver's seat in these instances. Changing densities and diameters, once a stepped simulation algorithm were worked out might be instructive. At least it's in the spirit of seeing what happens without having any good a priori knowledge of just how such a system behaves. Of course, a mathematical visualization does not necessarily reflect mechanical reality, but that doesn't mean it doesn't, or can't, as long as everyone understands it's just a trial model, and some other methodology might come closer to depicting what really might happen. Until we get to observe two large colliding bodies of fairly well known dimensions and densities we wouldn't conclusively know, of course.
An interesting simulation might be to see if planets can collide if they approach each other, substituting the UF mechanics for the Newtonian ones. My mental image is of those bump'em cars at the carnival with the big rubber bumpers to slow down and deflect the collisions among the drivers. It seems like the E/M force might act like a variable spring, getting stiffer (greater repulsive forces applied by the two bodies) the closer the encounter. (An example of a variable spring would be a thin steel bar pinned to a curved cylindrical surface and cantilevered off it, perpendicular to the cylinder's long axis - sort of like a diving board. As the bar is pressed down, it starts to wrap against the cylinder, and progressive deflection shortens the length of the bar, making the remaining cantilever stiffer. This is different from a coiled steel spring, which (in its elastic range, anyway) exhibits a constant force against an impressed compressive, or tensile, force, regardless of deflection. -At least until the coils actually touch each other, a state called "going solid". I'm just wondering if the variable spring analogy works for the E/M forces or if gravity remains in the driver's seat in these instances. Changing densities and diameters, once a stepped simulation algorithm were worked out might be instructive. At least it's in the spirit of seeing what happens without having any good a priori knowledge of just how such a system behaves. Of course, a mathematical visualization does not necessarily reflect mechanical reality, but that doesn't mean it doesn't, or can't, as long as everyone understands it's just a trial model, and some other methodology might come closer to depicting what really might happen. Until we get to observe two large colliding bodies of fairly well known dimensions and densities we wouldn't conclusively know, of course.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests