The Nature of Light

[D_Archer]

Miles Mathis - The Nature of Light: http://milesmathis.com/lighterrors.pdf

"This is an overview paper of my work on light and photons.

My papers have become so voluminous, some may find it hard to get a handle on them. This may help. Rather than condense my explanation of light into laws, propositions, or corollaries, I am going to condense it to corrections to errors"
===

I always explain light as physical photons and emphasize the importance of the charge field as discovered by Miles Mathis.
The overview here is very handy if you want get a quick grasp of the implications of returning light to physics.

To me Error 5: The photon is a point particle with no radius and no mass is very important and one i espouse the most to people, it really is the start to seeing how we can use this concept to explain physics much better than before.

I would also reference my own paper about this topic here > https://vixra.org/pdf/1811.0168v1.pdf , at the end i have a lot of references to Miles Mathis papers that deal with light.

Which discovery (error correction) do you think is important or shocking or surprising or...?

Kind regards,
Daniel

[crawler]

Most of the claimed 21 errors of the SM are i reckon truly errors of the SM. But most of Mathis's comments are of course in the context of his theory that the photon is the fundamental essence or the aether, & that everything else (except the major part of gravity) is due to the action of photons or spun-up photons (eg electrons). So its difficult to comment on the 21 errors without commenting on almost all of Mathis's theory(s).

Error 3b says that the MMX was null. No. The Michelson Morley X was not null, so too all of the Miller Morley X's.
But i don't know whether Mathis's photon theory is necessarily killed by a non-null MMX (i think it aint).
Anyhow the MMX argument was ended by Demjanov who designed a sensitive twin-media MMX & detected a strong aether wind in Obninsk in 1968-72 (he has a number of English papers on google).

Miles doesn't believe in an aether (other than a photonic aether), i do.
And he believes in the basic thrust of Einstein's STR & GTR, i don't.

Einstein said that if we knew exactly what an electron was then we would be almost there.
But i think that this was before the photon came on the scene.

[D_Archer]

Error 3b says that the MMX was null. No. The Michelson Morley X was not null, so too all of the Miller Morley X's.
But i don't know whether Mathis's photon theory is necessarily killed by a non-null MMX (i think it aint).
Anyhow the MMX argument was ended by Demjanov who designed a sensitive twin-media MMX & detected a strong aether wind in Obninsk in 1968-72 (he has a number of English papers on google).

Miles doesn't believe in an aether (other than a photonic aether), i do.
And he believes in the basic thrust of Einstein's STR & GTR, i don't.

Einstein said that if we knew exactly what an electron was then we would be almost there.
But i think that this was before the photon came on the scene.

Historically the MMX was given as a null result, so that is what Miles ran with i guess, indeed even a non-null result would not affect the physical photon/charge field, only strengthen its validity.

Demjanov, that is interesting, never heard of him, thank you.

No, Miles says the sea of physical photons is the aether. No, he only says SR has a place because if light takes time to travel, you have to account for that in your math. Miles does not support GR.

Well, Mathis has a model for what en electron is, a spun up photon.

Regards,
Daniel

[Cargo]

Overall I think it's great thinking and(but) new ways of looking at the same thing unfortunately. I get the sense that a great part of it is good and can be true, but it's missing a few things. I'm not sure if this is because of, trying to appease one or three old theories without completely telling the Libraries to throw their books away, or just more time for Miles to think of a better way. The battle for th'e'ather continues.

[crawler]

Overall I think it's great thinking and(but) new ways of looking at the same thing unfortunately. I get the sense that a great part of it is good and can be true, but it's missing a few things. I'm not sure if this is because of, trying to appease one or three old theories without completely telling the Libraries to throw their books away, or just more time for Miles to think of a better way. The battle for th'e'ather continues.

I like Mathis's stuff re the molecular like form of atoms, a non-nuclear kind of atom. Krafft posited these in i think 1947. Miles reckons that the alpha particle is a key ingredient, & electrons don't orbit they stick to smaller fixed locations. And the charge field (light) glues it all together, intra & inter the alphas. But that stuff is a bit off topic.

Then we have dark light -- neutrinos. Neutrinos are paired photons sharing a common axis, their fields negating due to being a half phase out of alignment. And confined neutrinos might give us dark particles, which are held together by gravity only -- dark matter.