Miles Mathis

[seasmith]

`

If we give the radiation that causes the electric force the mass required to achieve this force, then we have a form of mass that must be opposed to the mass that creates the gravitational field. By that I mean that the two fields are in opposition to eachother mechanically. One must be negative to the other. By this I do not mean anything esoteric. I am not creating some sort of mystical negative mass. I only mean to point out that every particle’s radiation must have mass, and that this radiated mass creates a vector field that points out, whereas the gravitational mass points in.

MM

http://milesmathis.com/charge.html

Before flux "fields' were commonly recognized, the question was about "actions at a distance". I agree with MM that no apparent body exists with out its "field". Some, even on this forum, yet insist on a requisite 'physical' contact of ponderable bodies for interaction. That perspective is fundamentally limiting.
The question now can be stated as:
what is the nature of the different primary fields and what is the nature of their interactions?

Elsewheres on this forum we have discussed the concept of an Electro-Magnetic Gyro effect.
This is the commonly observed mechanical/gravitational effect, but with the recognition of the inherent EM vectors~ that Miles has shown to be included in the Newtonian force equations all along.

Now we are on to a matter of scale. Ie: where the EMG effect is negligable, at say the scale of a spinning (non-charged/non-magnetic) bicycle wheel,it is paramont on the scale of a solar system.

Key in the computations, on that scale, is MM's oppositional vectors of the Electrical and Gravitational flows, imo.
~

[webolife]

Seasmith quoted:
"If we give the radiation that causes the electric force the mass required to achieve this force, then we have a form of mass that must be opposed to the mass that creates the gravitational field. By that I mean that the two fields are in opposition to eachother mechanically. One must be negative to the other. By this I do not mean anything esoteric. I am not creating some sort of mystical negative mass. I only mean to point out that every particle’s radiation must have mass, and that this radiated mass creates a vector field that points out, whereas the gravitational mass points in."

But I would submit that the electromotive force, like gravitation, is indeed quite inwardly directed.
Towards "ground" as it is said.
What am I missing here?
Rather than referring to the outwardly directed vectors as "mass", why not call this "energy", thus creating a dynamic equilibrium which keeps the universe for the most part "together". "For the most part" because there is a slight net inward vector resulting in the entropy of systems.

[Plasmatic]

"Rather than referring to the outwardly directed vectors as "mass", why not call this "energy", thus creating a dynamic equilibrium which keeps the universe for the most part "together". "For the most part" because there is a slight net inward vector resulting in the entropy of systems."

Perhaps Miles understands there can be no disembodied forces, or entity-less actions.

[webolife]

Perhaps Miles understands there can be no disembodied forces, or entity-less actions.

I totally understand your point here, but I never define a field as anything other than a description of the interaction between entities across space; forces (and their vectors) are only describable as you consider how one "body" reacts with another. When you consider the properties of a single object, however, you cannot cannot describe it apart from its field, nor can you describe the field without reference to its centroid, or to its source. But I consider the universe to be a finite entity (many on this forum disagree with me on that, I understand), so when I think of the universal field, I can't help but connect it to an entity which is beyond the scope of science either in extent or influence, ie an "infinite" field. At any other scale of reference, the universal/unified field manifests in ways that are more observable and describable in scientific terms.

[webolife]

As for what is observable (scientifically) it is possible to describe the unified field, manifested as gravitation, electromotive force (and its attendant magnetism), potential "energy", nuclear force, the casimir effect, etc.... and by the way the behavior of LIGHT , as "centropic", ie. vectors radiating toward the system centroid (as a sink) rather than as emissions away from the center as is traditionally viewed.

[StevenO]

As for what is observable (scientifically) it is possible to describe the unified field, manifested as gravitation, electromotive force (and its attendant magnetism), potential "energy", nuclear force, the casimir effect, etc.... and by the way the behavior of LIGHT , as "centropic", ie. vectors radiating toward the system centroid (as a sink) rather than as emissions away from the center as is traditionally viewed.

Hi Webbo

The "centropic" or "emissive" views of light are a matter of relativity. There are two options:

1) Once can assign the speed of light to the photons itself (the classic view).

2) One can assign the speed of light to expanding matter that observes the photons (yours and RST's view)

Both views can be taken as correct (technically). We measure space by observing photons, so by definition they travel straight lines between two points in space. They are neither expanding in all directions nor radiating toward the centroid. They are just by our definition taking the shortest path through space.

[seasmith]

webolife wrote:

“ “But I would submit that the electromotive force, like gravitation, is indeed quite inwardly directed.
Towards "ground" as it is said.

Webo,
If you mean by the “electromotive force” you mean V/d ; or MM’s mass-derived ‘charge field’: then either Force or Field, I see as a Flux-field. That implies more than one relative direction.
But in the case of EM force vs Gravity, relative to what?
Does rain fall and mist rise if you live in the ionosperes ?

“ Radiating quantum particles do not dissolve or diminish. This is known. Therefore "creation" happens at all times, from every material point. The universe is banging all the time.”

http://milesmathis.com/charge.html

The forces are “directed” back and forth, or in and out, to itself.
~Perhaps something like this [as provided by Kevin here]:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 722#p28722



s

[altonhare]

Thats totally makes sense. Thanks Steven.
Miles is on one incredible roll.
I hope the powers that be are taking notice.

I'm working on my research presentation here, so I have only had the time for scanning. I also need to read carefully all the background material on Miles' UFT, which I have also only "glossed" (to use a Mathisism). Miles is definitely an independent thinker with creative and interesting ideas, I especially like his "calculus of finite differences". I made number tables similar to those when I was first taking calculus, I wanted to "really confirm" the formulas were right because I was very suspicious of all these limits going to zero etc.

However, as far as being noticed, Miles will have a great deal more difficulty than he should if he continues to stand by his current [url2=http://milesmathis.com/mich.html]Michelson Morley Interferometer Article[/url2]. Miles assumes the experiment's result at the outset of his "proof" and then claims to "prove" that the expt could not have any other result. He uses this as an argument that every single researcher interpreting the findings as significant has been an utter fool. The findings were significant, but placed researchers since then in the embarrassing situation of needing an aether for relativity but insisting that the aether is actually superfluous.

So, since I appreciate his work, I am trying to help him remove material that will discredit him in the eyes of those who will be looking for any reason to do so. Namely, anyone married to the status quo. For this sake I ask everyone to carefully review the article, go over everything step by step, as an objective skeptic, and if you understand the error e mail him regarding it. I'm sure if he gets enough astute reviewers flagging him on it he'll see the problem.

[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.

[altonhare]

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.

[webolife]

Seasmith:
Your "flux" and luxodrome diagrams describe motions, not force vectors.
I stand by the unified field as being centropic in direction. Where two local fields interact, of course, there may be flux at their interacting "boundaries", eg. the tides are a flux developing from the interaction of the centropic gravitational fields of the sun, earth and moon. "Gravitational manifolds" are another example of fluxes occurring at the "boundary" of interacting fields.

[jjohnson]

A quickie heads-up here: Miles says he has been working on Bode's Law and should have a paper on its revision/correction based on, what else, his unified field theory.

[StevenO]

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.

Yes, thats APM again, it has both toroidal and spherical qualites and is actually both at the same time.
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.

Let me try to summarize Miles' view that charge=mass:

What we need to do to clean up the historical mess is a way to explain charge as mass. We need to jettison the whole ideas of charge, since it is not mechanical. It is needlessly fuzzy.
Quantum physicists will say that charge is not the equivalent of mass, since mass is caused by the ponderability of matter, or by its inertia, or by other equivalent ideas. Charge is thought to be caused by spin. I actually agree with this distinction, but I don’t think it matters here, mechanically or operationally, and this is why. If the electrical force is caused by a gas of ejected sub-particles, as I proposed, then the term “charge” applies to the summed mass or momentum of those sub-particles. It does not apply to the spin. We don’t need to know the mechanics of the spin in order to sum the momenta of the sub-particles. It doesn’t matter what caused the momentum. In measuring and explaining the force, we only need to be concerned with the sum of the momentum.

Of course, once we have found a way to mathematically sum the momentum of the gas, we may ask how the gas is created. Then we are taken back to the spin of the elementary particles in the repulsing objects. It would appear that the spin causes the ejection or radiation. This would mean that charge is caused by spin; but charge is not spin. Charge is the mass or momentum of the ejected gas or radiation.
The only truly important distinction here is that mass is a quality that is normally applied to the main two repulsing particles (protons or electrons, say), whereas charge must apply to the mass of the field—the summed mass of the sub-particles. By this way of looking at it, protons and electrons do not “have charge.” Protons and electrons radiate sub-particles, and the summed mass or momentum of these sub-particles is the “charge.” Definitionally and logically and mechanically, charge is the summed mass of the sub-particles. In short, charge is mass.
And this is why charge acts mathematically just like mass. It is mass. To calculate the charge, you need to know the mass and the distance. You are given the speed, c. This allows you to calculate the momentum. Notice that the distance is actually used to calculate the mass, since distance is telling you how large your gaseous object is. The distance is not telling you that you have a force working through a distance, as with the definition of the Joule. No, the distance is in the denominator in this case. You are dividing the force by the distance, and this is because you are seeking the mass of your gaseous object.

[StevenO]

A quickie heads-up here: Miles says he has been working on Bode's Law and should have a paper on its revision/correction based on, what else, his unified field theory.

I suggested to look into that a few weeks ago. Amazing how quickly he comes up with new solutions. The Stefan-Boltzmann paper he wrote the next day

I think there is enough material from Miles now just about the charge(/unified) field's influence on the solar system to justify another EU book. Or at least some new pages on the Thunderbolts or and other EU websites devoted to it.

[StevenO]

It's already up: A Complete Correction to and Explanation of Bode's Law