* Miles Mathis agreed to an interview. His website is http://milesmathis.com. He seems to be expert at analyzing Math, Science, Art etc. LK below are my initials. If anyone else has good questions for Miles, I'll pass them on.
LK: I hope this interview will be fun for both of us and TB forum readers. I've read probably 30 or more of your many papers on your http://milesmathis.com website, mostly on E/M and gravity. Have you read any of Velikovsky's books or any catastrophist literature, that you can mention? - Based on his studies of ancient mythology and science literature, he concluded that Venus was a new planet, that Venus and Mars separately had near collisions in ancient times with Earth and that Earth had been a moon of Saturn. Do you consider any of that implausible?
MM: Saturday, February 4, 2012 Lloyd, you have managed to ask me a lot of questions I don't know much about. I have read Velikovsky's books, like Worlds in Collision, but I have not based any of my research on that. I wouldn't say his theories are any more implausible than accepted science, and they are often more interesting. Some of his specific ideas I find unlikely, but others seem about as likely as anything. I don't think we have enough evidence to go on either way, but I say that as someone who hasn't studied his theories closely, so I don't pretend to be an expert.
LK: The Thunderbolts team, including Dave Talbott, Dwardu Cardona et al, consider Velikovsky's dating of those events and many details to have been way wrong, but the general theme they agree on. Do you have much familiarity with ancient myths? Would it surprise you, if you found that nearly all of the ancient myths have common themes that are in great agreement with each other, in the ways that Velikovsky concluded above?
MM: I have studied ancient myths. I was a Latin scholar in high school and college, and part of that was studying Greek and Roman myths. I have also studied a smattering of other myths, although again I wouldn't claim to be an expert on any of them. In general, I like Velikovsky's linking of the myths, and I often find his arguments compelling. I do think that ancient myths should be read as clues to history, as he does. I certainly don't dismiss them as fables. I am open to non-standard ideas in Egyptology, and all pre-history. Very few of the current answers satisfy me.
LK: Velikovsky understood some myths, like the thunderbolts of Zeus, to indicate that the planets had charge differences and that interplanetary lightning resulted. Later theorists have supposed that most of the craters on all planets (including Earth), moons, asteroids etc were formed by such electric discharges. He also thought the charges could have caused Earth to rotate unusually for a short time. Does all of that seem possible to you?
MM: This is the first time I have heard of craters caused by discharges, so I have no comment. As for charges causing abnormal rotations, caused by close passes, that is possible. I am not convinced of the close passes, but I have nothing against them in theory. We do have lots of evidence of instability in the past, and that instability would probably include near passes of larger bodies. How this played out is an open question, and Velikovsky and his followers seem to have some interesting ideas. I would not dismiss any of them without further consideration.
LK: I read your papers on planetary axis tilts about 2 years ago. I think you said adjacent planets affect each other's axial tilt. Cardona considered the similar tilts of Saturn, Mars and Earth to be evidence that they were once in close proximity, the latter two having been moons of Saturn. Do your findings make that improbable? If, as Cardona thinks, the Saturn System broke up about 4,500 years ago at about the distance of the main asteroid belt, after finding their present orbits, could those three planets maintain their tilts this long? Do you think your findings on tilts are pretty much rock solid?
MM: If you have read my papers on tilt, you know that I think that tilt is a result of the current arrangement. In other words, it is caused by the present shape of the system's unified field. So I would not agree that the similar tilts of Saturn and the Earth indicate a past connection. There may be a past connection, but this would not be a good indication of it, in my opinion.
LK: Tony Peratt, a plasma physicist, studied rock art pretty extensively and found strong evidence of atmospheric plasma effects in the drawings. Cardona et al consider that there was a plasma column from Saturn to Mars to Earth in ancient times. From Earth it appeared at the north pole. Cardona thinks Mars and Earth followed Saturn through interstellar space, somewhat like the SL9 comet pieces followed each other after the comet broke into pieces in 1992 until they hit Jupiter in 1994. So Saturn appeared from Earth to be a stationary light above the north pole, with the plasma column connecting them. Is that plausible to you?
MM: The plasma column to Saturn, based on rock art readings, sounds pretty out-there to me. But since I haven't seen the rock art or read the theory, that is just knee-jerk reaction. That would have to be my answer to the rest of your questions as well, since I haven't studied them. On a first look, they seem fairly far-fetched, but that is neither here nor there.
LK: Velikovsky didn't say much about it in his works, but he originally came to the conclusion that Earth was once a satellite of Saturn. … [Talbott and Cardona] looked into that in the mythology and found that he seemed to be correct. And they did that independently of each other. … Cardona has published several books now on his Saturn Theory. He has found that Saturn was likely a brown dwarf star that originated outside the Solar System in the nearby Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. Saturn, with Mars and Earth trailing behind, first entered the Solar System at the heliopause about 10,000 years ago, but the Saturn System remained intact for another 5,000 years as it gradually spiraled closer to the Sun. At the main asteroid belt the system broke up and the planets of the system over a period of years to decades took their present orbits. I bring that up, because I'd like to know if you might know of evidence for or against that theory.
MM (Friday, February 3, 2012): Lloyd, I know that the Earth and Saturn are both now orbiting at optical equivalence, meaning that if you looked at them both from the Sun they would look the same size. I don't know if that links them in the way you say, but the theory you relate doesn't bother me. It sounds plausible.
LK: Fred Jueneman thinks that Earth may have been squeezed by the pinch effect of electromagnetic fields from Saturn or the plasma column during their interstellar journey, which, when the squeeze was released, was followed by Earth "expansion" via the return of gravity effects, i.e. changing from oblong to spherical. He thinks Earth may have spun faster, causing near weightlessness and phenomenal growth of plants and animals. The changing shape also could have produced continental drift. Plausible or implausible? - Many on the TB team regard many features on Earth to be electrical effects from only a few thousand years ago, even though conventional science dates many of them to be millions of years old. I read some of your material on radioactive decay. What do you think is the maximum error possible in radioactive decay dating measurements or calculations? …
MM: So, the only real answer I had was for the tilt question. I haven't researched any of this other stuff. Other questions have been more pressing and compelling for me personally. From the beginning I wanted to tear apart basic physics like an old watch and put it back together. As you guys don't trust near cosmology, I don't trust textbook physics. Therefore I am going chapter by chapter through the standard texts, combing them for errors. Some of this may interest the Thunderbolts, some of it may not. I think my pulling of charge out of the old equations of Newton, Coulomb and Lagrange should interest you greatly. As should my proof that dark matter is charge.
Sparky
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Lloyd, would you please get into "charge", and construct a series of questions relating to observed magnetic filaments, ie., birkeland currents, energetic radiations, jets, and measured solar wind, and how these may relate to charge field, adding to or subtracting from?
example: we experimentally can produce plasma in labs. Could far distant images of radiation activity, associated with magnetic fields, around filamentary structures be birkeland currents? etc.,etc.
Would also like his opinion on a surge of electrical input to the sun causing a fissioning of the sun to relieve stress?
thank you
ps: If you get into an area that Miles has no knowledge of, please move on to another subject.
orrery
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
The interview seemed overly focused on Velikovsky and mythology which didn't seem to be a field of much interest for Mathis. The Saturn Myths are all well & good fun and all but we should really put things like that on the back burner and focus on understanding the world in the here & now.
ORRERY: Dr. Mathis, when looking at the gigantic superstructures of the Universe, I tend to envision clusters of galaxies as making up Galactic Flux Tubes connecting large Superclusters. Locally, our own Supercluster, the Pisces-Cetus Supercluster appears to be part of a "Dark Glow Electron Plasma Flux Tube" that is flowing towards the Great Attractor where Galaxies are mixed about as if in a blender. What type of mathematical physics would support observations that "Flux Tubes" could be flowing away from the Great Attractor Cluster as a transfer to another Great Attractor? Could there be a communication network between these Giant Cluster Nodes exchanging material as you might imagine electrical signals firing back and forth between Neurons in the human brain?
If you do not have the information already at hand, would you be interested in helping to determine whether or not Flux Tubes are emanating from the Great Attractor with objects moving both towards and away? What type of mathematics would be necessary to understanding these kinds of electro-hydrodynamic fluid motions between Supercluster Nodes like the Great Attractor? What type of pulsations could trigger the velocity of galaxies within these Dark Glow Electron Flux Tubes? Does any of this make sense?
ORRERY: Many Blue-Shifted Objects that we are able to observe tend to be at 180° apart, it is my belief these are Flux Tubes on an angular approach, just as we are, towards the Great Attractor. Is this a rational conclusion?
I look forward to your responses, you may relay them to Lloyd if you please.
phyllotaxis
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Cleverness is not wisdom. ~Euripides
I would ask of Mr. Mathis his views on the real-world applications of his many writings.
I would appreciate seeing: 1) The three most important contributions he believes he has made in his work, and 2) how they might each affect real technologies, both now and in the future
Reading abstract theory is great and stimulating, but I'm curious of his views on the practical application of his work(s).
In other words, SUMMARIZE what the work is good for from an engineering perspective, or that of a chemist, computer scientist, etc... as though you are explaining it to an audience of intelligent laymen.
I have always believed that the clarity of summation is a most effective tool of communication, and really brings the information 'off-the-page', as it were.
Many thanks for the dialogue- I have a genuine respect for Miles Mathis and his pursuits.
mharratsc
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Miles Mathis said:
I think my pulling of charge out of the old equations of Newton, Coulomb and Lagrange should interest you greatly. As should my proof that dark matter is charge.
That does seem to coincide with some of the things being mentioned around here, that's for certain. Perhaps it is yet another unlikely correspondence between disparate researchers, as we saw with Talbott, Cardona, Peratt and Thornhill?
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
* Miles hasn't yet answered my second set of questions, which included the questions above. He writes a lot for his website etc, so it may take a while for him to reply sometimes. In the mean time, here's a list of his papers on electrical phenomena in the microcosm. I'm thinking of listing his papers on electrical phenomena in the macrocosm afterwards. If anyone who'd like to ask Miles questions regarding the microcosm would look through the following for relevant papers, you could read those before asking your questions, to see if you may find answers there first. Okay? * This list is from his site at http://milesmathis.com/ 37. http://milesmathis.com/ether.html - The Ether, does the ether exist, and if so, in what form? 8pp. 38. http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html - Tesla and Einstein were Both Right, about the ether. 8pp. 164. http://milesmathis.com/photon.html - Unifying the Photon with other Quanta. Showing that the photon is another spin level of the fundamental quantum. Also, I calculate a mass for the photon. 7p. 165. http://milesmathis.com/photon4.html - Where are the B-photons? Hiding in plain sight, as usual. 2pp. 166. http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html - How Do Photons Travel? I show the local wavelength of the photon and the transform to the measured wavelength. 5p. 71. http://milesmathis.com/charge.html - Electrical Charge. Defining charge as the mass of the radiation. 9pp. 76. http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html - What is "Charge"? It is a resultant acceleration of two fields. 8pp. 77. http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html - How Magnetism works Mechanically With spin and the unified field. 11pp. 81b. http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf - How a Battery Circuit Works. Not the mathematical or field model, but the full mechanical model, with photons. 9pp. 82b. http://milesmathis.com/cc.pdf - The Cosmological Constant IS the Charge Field. Compilation of evidence from my other papers. 6pp. 87. http://milesmathis.com/charge3.html - More Proof of the Reality of the Charge Field. Where I show that e ≈ 1/c. 6pp. 155. http://milesmathis.com/strong.html - The Electromagnetic Field (and the Strong Force). How the E/M field and the strong force have changed due to my new Unified Field. 5pp. 157a. http://milesmathis.com/stack.html - How to Build a Nucleus without the Strong Force. With simple logic and diagrams. 8pp. 130a. http://milesmathis.com/quantumg.html - Gravity at the Quantum Level. All the math for the unified field at the quantum level, including a force between the electron and proton. 9pp. 159a. http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html - Unifying the Electron and Proton. The quantum equation that explains it all. 3p. 161. http://milesmathis.com/elec3.html - The Electron Radius as a Function of c. I show the flaw in the current equation for the classical electron radius: a scaling constant has been left out, giving us a radius too large by 252x. 6pp. 157b. http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf - How to Build the Elements. Explaining the periodic table, with nuclear diagrams. 16pp. 157c. http://milesmathis.com/uranium.pdf - How to Build Uranium. How the stars do it, with diagrams. 4pp. 157f. http://milesmathis.com/oxygen.pdf - The Oxygen Molecule. with nuclear diagrams. 4pp. 157i. http://milesmathis.com/water2.pdf - The Hydrogen Bond. Including a diagram of water. 10pp.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Miles' Papers on Macrocosm - Galaxies to Stars * I decided to go ahead an post these now, so I don't misplace them, after spending some time organizing them. 122b. http://milesmathis.com/engine.pdf - The Central Engine. What drives the galaxies? 3pp. 125. http://milesmathis.com/mond.html - How my Unified Field solves the Galactic Rotation Problem, including a critique of the math of MOND and of the dark matter solution. 7pp. 137. http://milesmathis.com/bullet.html - A Critique of the Bullet Cluster Interpretation, showing that charge is the answer, not dark matter. 19pp. 159b. http://milesmathis.com/spin.html - Galactic Proof of my Quantum Spin Model. Spin at all levels. 7pp. 141. http://milesmathis.com/black2.html - Black Holes & Quasars, New theory for exotics. 8pp. 134b. http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf - Star Formation. Not gravitational collapse; unified field collapse. 7pp. 85a. http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.html - The Hole at the Center of the Sun. The charge field fills the hole in Solar theory. 8pp. Macrocosmic Effects of Electric Forces 83a. http://milesmathis.com/ice.html - How the Charge Field causes the Ice Ages. Charge from the galactic plane and Jupiter replace Milankovitch. 8pp. 85c. http://milesmathis.com/sunrad.pdf - Radioactivity and the Sun. How the Sun affects radioactivity on the Earth. 2pp. 105. http://milesmathis.com/mars.html - The Main Cause of Solar System Instability: Smaller planets orbiting above larger ones. 5pp. 94. http://milesmathis.com/venus.html - The E/M Fields of Solar System Bodies. How to create Solar Wind exclusion without a magnetosphere. 4pp. 95. http://milesmathis.com/pause.html - The Magnetopause calculated from the Unified Field. More Solar Wind anomalies solved with the charge field. 9pp. 96. http://milesmathis.com/tilt.html - The Cause of Axial Tilt, Part 1. Not collisions in the distant past, but charge "perturbations" from other planets. 10pp. 97a. http://milesmathis.com/tilt2.html - The Cause of Axial Tilt, Part 2. Nutation; plus the solution to Jupiter. 7pp. 97b. http://milesmathis.com/uran.pdf - The Magnetic Fields of Uranus and Neptune. I use the charge field to explain these as well. 8pp. 97c. http://milesmathis.com/marsmag.pdf - Where is the Magnetism of Mars? I show a balance in the ambient charge field. 3pp. 98. http://milesmathis.com/bode.html - Bode's Law. A complete explanation of and correction to Bode's Law. 19pp. 99a. http://milesmathis.com/lagrange2.html - The Charge Field Causes Lagrange Points. I analyze the Lagrangian and Lagrange points. 14pp. 99b. http://milesmathis.com/lag3.pdf - Unlocking the Lagrangian. I thoroughly scrub the Lagrangian, showing that it is another unified field equation in disguise. 10pp. 107. http://milesmathis.com/cm.html - Celestial Mechanics. A demonstration of the inadequacies of current theory regarding gravity, orbits, and nebulae. 18pp. 108. http://milesmathis.com/cm2.html - Another Hole in Celestial Mechanics. The late Ralph René gives us an important clue: The force on the Moon from the Sun is greater than the force on the Moon from the Earth. 4pp. 129b. http://milesmathis.com/aster.pdf - The C-orbit Asteroids prove the Unified Field. New asteroid paths cannot be explained with gravity-only. 3pp.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Miles' Answers to Second Set of Questions
LK: Last time I started with questions that I thought TB forum readers would like to ask. You didn't seem to have much fun with those questions, but I enjoyed your answers. Your mention of cosmic instabilities sounds especially pertinent. Can you elaborate on those? Or can you say which of your papers may cover such instabilities? Oh, I just remembered the one on smaller planets in outer orbits at http://milesmathis.com/mars.html. Do you know of other potential instabilities?
MM: Hi Lloyd. Yes, these are a little more my speed. I think mars.html is the best paper for pointing out the cause of instability in the Solar System.
LK: Do you recall how you first got interested in math? Did you like it for practical reasons? If so, what sorts of practical things did you enjoy doing with math? I've enjoyed being able to find diagonals, areas, volumes etc with math, with a little more sophistication than most people can manage, but not really very sophisticated, though I can do some algebra. I didn't learn conventional calculus very well. What have been your most satisfying math accomplishments?
MM: As for math, of course figuring out the role of G in the field equations was a high point. Before that, unwinding the simple mistakes in SR kind of got me started along this road, because I could see that I was capable of seeing through math that most other people could not see through. Since then I have read a lot of other critiques of SR, and some of them make some good points, but no one has pointed out the simple mistakes that I have pointed out, in such clear language. Like the problem with the equation x' = x - vt. Basic stuff that no one had ever seen before to my knowledge. More recently pulling apart the Lagrangian is very big. That will cause waves for decades, or should. I could go on, But that is enough to get us started.
LK: When did you first discover that there are major problems in the math used in physics? And when did you decide to do something about that? You said in your bio that, when you took your college SAT test, I think, that you found an error in one of the math questions. Do you recall what it was? I think you said you reported it and the test makers then corrected it.
MM: Yes, it was the PSAT in about 1980. Not too interesting, just a basic highschool math problem, but these tests are littered with errors like that. IQ tests are littered with errors as well, as so are basically worthless. A much more interesting thing happened when I was 15, in algebra 2. It was near the end of the semester and the teacher was kind of recruiting for his senior calculus class. So he asked us all a question that sort of mirrored what Leibniz and Newton were working on when they created the calculus. He led us into the problem and then asked if we could see a way to solve it. I answered it immediately, not realizing what I had just done. Later he took me aside and told me I was the only student who had answered the question in his 20 years as a teacher. And my friends in that class were pretty stiff competition as well, since several of them became National Merit Scholars with me. I now look back and think that was a hint of things to come, although I didn't know it at the time. I didn't dislike math, but I wasn't crazy about it. I had a lot of interests and liked being good at everything, but I wouldn't say I was especially into math. I didn't even end up taking calculus with that teacher. I was a discipline problem and later got crossways with him. I ended up taking calculus the summer after graduation, to avoid him.
LK: You said: "I think my pulling of charge out of the old equations of Newton, Coulomb and Lagrange should interest you greatly. As should my proof that dark matter is charge." Yes, it does interest me and a number of other TB forum readers. I don't think I've read the dark matter piece yet, but it sounds like it's come to about the same conclusion that EU theorists have come to, but by a different route. Although you say you don't know a lot about astronomy, there is a lot of astronomy discussion in your online book.
MM: I don't think I said I don't know much about astronomy. I said I don't know much about the things that seem to interest the Thunderbolts the most. Astronomy is a big field. I am not a plasma physicist, for example. And I am not heavily into Velikovsky.
LK: See if I understand some of your basic ideas correctly. The charge field consists of photons. Do photons come from the aether? Photons have mass. Can they exist at rest, as aether? Each one spins. Does that make it a sphere? It can also spin about a point on its surface. If a sphere spins about a point on its surface, it makes a torus, doesn't it? You call that a stacked spin, a spin of a spin. That spin can also be a stacked spin. If a torus spins about a point on its maximum circumference perpendicular to its axis, it would also form a torus, wouldn't it? If each stacking is called a spin level, at the 5th or 6th spin level, an electron is formed. Is that right? And at a certain level of electron stacked spins, a proton is formed. Right? There are also anti-photons, positrons, anti-protons, neutrons and anti-neutrons, where the anti's spin in reverse. And I read about how you say elements are formed, having symmetry of spin, for balance. That paper is especially interesting and persuasive.
MM: No, photons don't come from the aether. In a sense, they ARE the aether. If you want to have an aether, then the photons would be what make it up, physically. My theory is all physical and mechanical, so I don't let anything "come from" the aether, as if it just materializes from the vacuum. Photons don't appear and disappear, like virtual particles. They are indestructible. They can lose spins but they cannot annihilate. It is possible for them to exist at rest, but they normally don't. A photon at rest is like a sitting duck in the field, and it gets reboosted back up to c by collisions. Yes, it is best to think of a photon as a sphere to start with, though as field particle I diagram it as a disk. Because of its fast spin, it acts like a disk in a lot of situations. You can talk about a torus if you like, but I never do. I don't find it that useful. It is best to concentrate on the spins rather than the shapes. The spins translate right into the spin equations in a simple way. If you bring the torus into it people want to insert torus math, which just mucks up the equations for no good reason. Each spin level has four spins, if you include the axial. So if you go above four you start another level. This is just due to the three dimensions. And yes, at some point the photon stacks enough spins to become an electron. The outer spin radius gets large enough that collisions in the field start to slow the photon down. The bigger a particle is, the more of the charge field it hits. It isn't necessarily five or six spins, since you have to specify what level you are starting at. Photons can have different sizes and different numbers, so we would have to know if we were starting from a small photon or a big one like an x ray. At this point I don't know precisely how the levels work, meaning I don't know where in my math to assign each known photon. I have the outline, but I haven't yet even tried to overlay my math on the known spectrum. I work on a lot of problems simultaneously as you know, and skip around. Very little is finished. I just kick along each problem as it comes to me, and one problem will give me an idea how to solve another. My method may look mad, but it has worked rather well for me so far.
LK: I don't understand how something physical can spin about a point on its surface, but, if everything works out that way, it's easier to believe than any alternatives so far. You say the gravitational force affects size, not mass, but the E/M force affects mass, not size. Is that right? Since the conventional gravitational force contains the E/M force within it, are there conditions in which something is moved only by gravity, or only by E/M? If 2 objects have the same size, but different densities, the gravitational force is the same on both, but the E/M force on them is different?
MM: Yes, my outer spin model is hard for a lot of people to visualize. But it is actually easy to diagram. It is not something you have to take on faith. Go to my paper on superposition, http://milesmathis.com/super.html, and see the animation by Wheeler there. It will help you to visualize the motions. I have been told you can't stack spins like that in the real world, but what they mean by real world is that in an atmosphere you can't stack spins on gyroscopes at our level. That is true, but it is because we exist in a field. Photons don't exist in a field. Photons are the field, as I said above, so if you are a photon and you look outside, you see only vacuum. Everything above the photon exists in a sea of photons, but the photons exist in the vacuum. That is the difference. They are our field, but nothing is their field. So they are free to stack spins. No field is preventing it. The only thing that [a]ffects photons is collisions with other photons or collisions with larger particles. A field is collision with smaller particles. Photons don't have any smaller particles to contend with. - Yes, there are instances where E/M can be partially blocked. Gravity cannot be blocked. I talk about this a bit when I talk about eclipses or the far side of the Moon. If we are talking about E/M as ions, it gets blocked all the time. If we are talking about charge and photons, it also gets blocked, but less easily. Photons can travel through matter to some extent, and their field waves, which we now call neutrinos, can travel through matter even more easily. See my paper weight.html for more on this. It explains how density and size now work in the unified field.
LK: Some readers have questions. One wants to understand charge, especially electric discharge, on a cosmic scale. You have a paper explaining galactic rotation and dark matter as charge at http://milesmathis.com/mond.html. This one discusses solar wind: http://milesmathis.com/pause.html, but does it explain it? Could excess current to the sun cause it to fission? Sorry, if any of these are not in your area of expertise.
MM: The paper for current through the sun is http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.pdf. There I show that the Sun is both a charge engine, recycling charge from the galactic core, and a fusion reactor. I even show the math that determines how much of the Sun's output is due to charge and how much is due to fusion. I don't think the Thunderbolts will like my math there, but oh well.
LK: One reader wants to know if it's conceivable that intergalactic electric currents could be acting like signals between neurons in the brain, which I guess is part of a theory that the universe is a physical intelligence. What sort of math would be needed to determine this?
MM: It is not out of the question that charge is used to carry information in the universe. In fact, it certainly does carry information, as we see when we learn things about distant galaxies from studying light patterns. And all parts of the universe affect all other parts, to some extent. Whether we would call that intelligence depends what we mean by intelligence. I would say that in most instances, since bodies like stars and planets can't decide what questions they want to ask and then seek for specific information, most people would not call them intelligent. They aren't active learners making decisions. But if you mean by intelligent simply the fact that they can act on incoming information, then they are certainly intelligent. But in that case we would have to call a thermostat intelligent.
LK: Another reader would like to know what you think are your most important contributions to science, math, or art etc, and what advances they may bring about.
MM: I already answered the last question above, in part. Unlocking G and the Lagrangian, unlocking Coulombs constant, creating a simple unified field equation, solving the vacuum catastrophe, figuring out what the fine structure constant is, explaining Bode's law. Discovering charge as a real thing (not virtual) underlies all those answers, so I guess that would be the big one.
orrery
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Thank you Lloyd and Dr. Mathis for answering one of my questions.
If I would have another asked, it would be if he is familiar with the work of Ari Brynjolfsson and his work in Plasma Redshift who's work with various Radiation Laboratories with the U.S. Army & U.N. has shown that Redshift is a function of Electron Density.
LK: Aether * Before you answered my last email question about aether, I read your paper on Einstein and Tesla on the aether, so I got your more detailed answer there. You said aether cannot exist as a background reference frame, but it can exist as a sea of sub-particles, i.e. photons. It made sense to me. I know you also say that light waves are not waves in the field of photons, but only in the photon motion itself. At http://milesmathis.com/tired.pdf you said: "There may be an ether of some sort, and if you call my charge field an ether, then of course I agree there is an ether; but even with this ether, we know that the waves are not waves in the ether. All the experiments of the last century have proved that. And besides, I have shown that the wave is part of the photon itself. It is not a field wave." But it seems to me that there should be wave motions in the photon field too, if the photons act as an ideal gas. Have you written anything about the experiments that prove that light is not a field wave? Could photon field waves be detectable some other way? * On his CD, AETHRO-KINEMATICS, Steven Rado (of Hungary, I think), basing his ideas on the aether as an ideal gas said: "In one of its forms, the basic equation of wavemotion states, that Wave-velocity / Wavelength = Frequency.... According to our best estimation, the speed of propagation of sound in steel is 10^6 cm/sec. The highest known frequency propagated in steel is 10^14 cycle/sec, therefore the calculated average distance between the [adjacent] atoms of steel is 10^6 cm/sec / 10^14 = 10^-8 cm. Similarly, [t]he highest known frequency of electromagnetic waves ... in the form of gamma rays, [is] 5x10^24/sec. The corresponding wavelength is approximately 6x10^-15 cm. If the shortest possible wavelength of sound was determined by the shortest possible average distance of the vibrating atoms of steel, then the approximate average distance between the Aethrons in the Aether should be 6x10^-15 cm. It is assumed that the size of the Aethrons are negligible compared to their distances apart and therefore the above quantity also sets the density of the Aether. It turns out that the Aethrons are 6,000,000 times closer to one another than the atoms of steel, thus as a medium, Aether is six million times denser than steel." * Since you say the relative diameter of the B-photon is 6.67 x 10^-11 times smaller than the hydrogen atom, maybe the waves of the photon field would be too small to detect. Or maybe they'd just complicate the measured photon waves. Can you share any thoughts on that? * In the diagram below, a torus can be seen to be very nearly spherical. But I was also thinking lately that a torus would easily take the shape of a true sphere, if it were rotated about its major diameter. If the spherical basic photon can be rotated about a point on its surface to form a torus, couldn't the torus also be rotated about its major diameter to form a sphere? What do you think of this model? http://www.kjmaclean.com/WebMovie/HEF.gif
MM: Since I have shown the waves created by the spins, we don't need field waves anymore. My spins replace them, you see. If you want field waves, you can read my papers on neutrinos, which shows they are field waves in the photon field. But the waves we are seeing in most experiments are caused by photon spins. [LK: See WHAT ARE NEUTRINOS? http://milesmathis.com/neut2.pdf Radioactivity and the Sun http://milesmathis.com/sunrad.pdf Photons, stacked spins & the silver mean family http://milesmathis.com/mhphoton.pdf]
MM: I can't comment on other people's models, since I haven't studied them. I guess readers will have to argue whether my explanations are clearer or theirs. - As I said, I am not much interested in talking about tori. I haven't found any use for them yet. - Kanarev's models look pretty close, but I don't think they are right.
"And once I had anal[y]zed the mechanism of Bremsstrahlung, I understood the mechanism of redshift. Zwicky was right to begin with: the redshift is caused by photons interacting with interstellar media (not just electrons, it could be any ions). The important thing is not the material, it is the mechanism. Just as an electron has its outer spin damped or stripped in Bremsstrahlung, a photon has its outer spin damped or stripped in a similar close pass with electron or other ion. It is not c or the angle to the observer that is affected in this interaction, it is the outer spin radius. A collision at this spin radius slows the spin velocity, which increases the spin radius, which increases the wavelength. The photon has been redshifted."
* By the way, do you recall if that paper explains why slowing a photon's outer spin speed increases the photon's radius? Is it because it maintains angular momentum after a collision?
MM: The outer spin speed of the photon doesn't increase the radius. The radius is determined by gyroscopic exclusion rules and multiples of 2. If the photon continues to have high energy collisions and it requires another spin, it stacks one on. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
* Thornhill on the Thunderbolts team thinks AGNs, active galactic nuclei, act as plasma guns and shoot out quasars occasionally, usually along their [AGN] axes. He thinks the quasars start out as positive ions with low mass and high velocity, while the AGN magnetic field hold electrons back for a time. So he seems in agreement that positive ions can also cause redshift. He based some of his theory on Halton Arp's quasar studies. Thunderbolts has an image of a quasar in front of a galaxy that disproves redshift = distance. * Do you have any other comments?
MM: I don't know about Thornhill's theory. I don't think quasars are made that way, but he could be right. It isn't my specialty. I have only written one paper on quasars, suggesting their form. His theory seems to me to be better than the current one, but it still seems highly speculative, and may contain some holes. I may have more to say about it later, when I have studied the question in more depth.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Similar Theories LK: Miles, I'm finding several professional supports of your ideas. I just read one guy's idea about shadow-gravity, similar to LeSage's ideas, which LeSage apparently got from Fatio. It involves exploding electrons to produce the photon-like particles that produce gravity and, I think, E/M etc. His electrons build up a layer of these sub-particles, which soon explode and then repeat the cycle. Sounds a lot like your charge field recycling. Amazing that so many similar ideas are floating around. Have you read Sheldrake's A New Science of Life? It seems to explain how similar ideas can occur at about the same time.
MM: I'm not sure about exploding particles. I think my recycling makes more sense. [LK: I agree, but the exploding electron idea is very similar, in that both his and your theories involve electrons shooting out photons.]
The Sun Emits More Mass Than It Has LK: Kanarev (a Russian physicist) seems to offer an interesting proof of your idea about the recycling of charge field photons. This is from http://www.micro-world.su/index.php/eng ... trophysics. What do you think of this as a partial proof or support? 1730. How many photons are emitted by the Sun per second on the internal surface of the sphere with the orbital radius of the Earth? ..... n[sub]ff=n[sub]f *S[sub]3=3.11*10^17*2.83*10^27=9.10*10^44 pieces (253) 1731. What is the mass of the photons, which are emitted by the Sun per second on the internal surface of the sphere with the orbital radius of the Earth, equal to? ..... M[sub]1f= n[sub]ff*m[sub]f =9.10^*10^44*5*10^36 =4.55*10^9 kg/s=4.55*10^6 t/s (254) 1735. Where do the Sun electrons [get] mass for the emitted photons? There is only one source: a rarefied substance, which fills space; it is called the aether [same as MM's charge field photons]. 1736. Does it mean that the electron restores its mass after each emission of the photon by absorption of the aether? This is the only acceptable hypothesis for the present, which helps to get the answers for many other questions concerning microworld. 1737. Does it appear from the above-mentioned facts that the rarefied substance of physical vacuum, which is called the aether, is the main source of thermal energy? It is a hypothesis for the present, but an abundance of the subsequent experimental facts will strengthen its reliability, and a day will come when the world scientific society will have to accept this hypothesis as a reliable scientific postulate.
Sun's Energy from Galactic Core MM: Yes, I agree with Kanarev on the basics. The ether is just photons, and they are also recycled by the galactic core. That is where our ether comes from, in a more direct sense. The Sun gets his energy from the galactic core, via photons in Kanarev's ether. I have shown you have to be careful when talking about an ether, since there is historically a lot of confusion. But Kanarev is basically correct. [LK: I see that MM has a paper on that at http://milesmathis.com/engine.pdf, which I'll have to read now. ... Hmmm, I read it, but it doesn't explain much. Maybe it's not finished yet. I guess this one is better: http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf.]
Photons do collide all the time, but because they are the same size, they normally don't cause much slowing. The odds of a direct hit are very small. Indirect hits cause spin, not slowing. So collisions do cause all the spins, without much slowing. Of course direct hits do happen, but these hits do not cause annihilation. They cause temporary stoppage of both photons. Stopped photons are sitting ducks: their odds of direct collision go way up. So they get re-boosted by other photons and eventually reach c again. The small fraction of photons that get stopped simply lowers the average speed of all the photons.
* I was thinking that your photons acted like an ideal gas, so I thought you had said they would collide elastically. I mean, wouldn't they simply bounce off of each other and get reflected at light-speed? Isn't the lower speed of light through water and glass due to the photons bouncing off of atoms in those substances?
MM: With photons colliding, it could go either way. I don't think any real particles are totally elastic, and photons are as real as anything else. More ideal, but no[t] totally ideal. Theory at that level doesn't make much difference to the equations, since everything we see with photons is an average. As for the slower speed through glass and so on, that is caused by deflections and longer paths, not slowing. see [http://milesmathis.com/feyn3.html] for the solution to that. Feynman basically agreed with that, though I update his math and theory.
katesisco
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Thanks for the interview, it is all info.
I want to know if the energy from the AGN can be considered a non-locality. Does MM have any papers on matter/antimatter?
If we go back to the creation of Fluff, our local gas cloud, which NASA says is 10 my old, there are a lot of interesting possibilities to be drawn. 2011 science discovered that most of Sol's planets aren't Sol's. Sol itself seems to match M67 a loose galactic cluster and the assumption is that it was left when M67 passed through the galactic ecliptic. Now things get interesting: did it muscle its way into an established system and proceed to wreck havoc? Did its motion introduce energy into a electromagnetic field? Did it bring any bodies with it? The mix could have produced a nova, several novas since we seem to have any number of varying mix of gas pressured fields in our local part of the galaxy. Science now says that 'black holes' of 10 to 6 mass don't immediately ( I have no idea of what 'immediately' conotates here) disintegrate. 10 to the 8 mass will gain if gas is available and become larger. 10 to the 6 mass seems just to be able to remain stable losing very little. Science now says brown dwarfs, unseen like small black holes, are everywhere. I am reminded that Tungusta was proposed as a result of a micro black hole which does not now seem impossible. Just because we see stellar novas of immense size does not mean novas of smaller size are not common with the gas dispersing rapidly if there is not a strong enough magnetic field to make it linger. Especially in view of the admission of unseen small black holes and brown dwarfs everywhere making dark energy unnecessary.
So the Centauri A & B may have a long history. Science says so far no planet bigger than 3x Earth exists but cannot yet rule out smaller. Proxima Centauri may have had a small LT starbit. I prefer this term LT (light terminus) for a wrongly called 'black hole.' This LT starbit would have been created millions of years ago. If it was 10 to 6 mass it would have remained mostly stable losing little gas even if it moved out of its birth gas cloud. But eventually the pressure holding the gas inside the quantum would fail and the gas would release which may be what science saw in 2005 when it looked and G1.9 and saw a new gas cloud where none existed in 1984. Since the interior of the starbit would have lower pressure due to the gas release, the former LT starbit capable of terminating light waves no longer could. Instead its interior would still be quantum but a neutron and hence visible though the gas as blue. It would be shedding neutrinos heavily. I propose the neutron shedding would continue until the neutron gained atomic arrangement, at which time it would be normal matter, possibly H2O.
I realize the above is unusual but surely no more unusual than the admission of brown dwarfs and mini black holes literally everywhere. My theory says that in the distant past Sol's system was regularly visited by the then LT starbit whose composition (unknown to me) would have been responsible for the energizing of Fluff and Fluff's compression of Sol's heliosphere down to perhaps Mercury. This would leave all other bodies exposed to truly cosmic rays and core heating which would result in expansion. Now if you consider S W Carey's expanding Earth theory, he supports his claim with factual geologic evidence, which makes this theory possible. As for evidence, there is the Kuiper Belt, the Asteroid Belt and most astonishing of all the ORT shell which would have had to form under gigantic electromagnetic pressure.
Whatever it was, neutrino repulsion (O Manuel) or other, our system repeatedly and periodically was compressed and expanded immediately where the compression had retreated, and immediately afterward when the compression lifted from the remaining area under compression. As for how the heliosphere is restored, I propose that the solar system/galaxy acts as a capacitor holding magnetism as electric charge, then upon overloading, discharging as magnetic again, or a better theory as it follows the KISS principle, is that the ORT shell controls the access of truly cosmic rays, not the (1)heliosphere. (2)the heliopause (3) the heliosheath as NASA proposes. We experience neutrino bombardment the same way we experienced neutron repulsion before our LT starbit burped, at the exact time the ORT shell is penetrated by our local neutron bitsy. The neutron bitsy almost immediately reaches apogee from one assumes Proxima Centauri and perigee from Earth and returns along the same path and once it crosses the ORT shell barrier we cease to feel the effects. Why this unusual long eliptical orbit would cross through the ORT shell is unknown. Why it immediately returns is unknown. Is it neutron repulsion? Is it anti matter?
I suggest the only reason we have a 10,000 y recorded history is that the LT starbit burped its gas and rearranged internally as a neutron. That loss of energy was sufficient to restrict the compression to the inner solid planets and allow expansion only to the gas giants. And that is when we began to experience regular periodic neutrino bombardment. Will we have a non locality discharge this time? I am not sure if there is sufficient energy to make that happen. It could be that 2012 will pass as the neutron bitsy return to its outer orbit leaving roiled gas planets but the inner planets intact.
I propose here that our chance to gain space travel ended 10,000 y ago when the neutron repulsion was strong enough to allow gravity to be superseded. When the blue star appears it will be too late-------means that the chance to leave the planet is gone.
ks http//:www.chequamegon.blogspot.com
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Kate said: Does MM have any papers on matter/antimatter?
[Our heliosphere] repeatedly and periodically was compressed and expanded
* I'll ask MM if the cloud or anything else can likely do that.
I suggest the only reason we have a 10,000 y recorded history is that the LT starbit burped its gas and rearranged internally as a neutron. That loss of energy was sufficient to restrict the compression to the inner solid planets and allow expansion only to the gas giants. And that is when we began to experience regular periodic neutrino bombardment. Will we have a non locality discharge this time?
* I'll see if MM replies about that.
I propose here that our chance to gain space travel ended 10,000 y ago when the neutron repulsion was strong enough to allow gravity to be superseded.
* See Cardona Interview and Earth Moon of Saturn threads above, which explain Earth's past weaker gravity.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Photon Cloud LK: Hello Miles. Have you heard of a photon cloud that's said to be enveloping the solar system? This webpage http://www.gafnews.com/content/worlds-pyramids-beaming-ener~ has a recent story about it. If you know about that cloud, do you think it is an area of higher or lower charge, or antiphotons, which may affect solar output? - A reader brings up some ideas which I'll convert to questions. * Would such a cloud be able to shrink or expand the heliosphere significantly? * If so, would greater cosmic ray bombardment or the like be able to shrink or expand planets, like Earth? * She asks if the energy from the AGN is a non-locality, or if an electric discharge can be a non-locality? I don't know what she means by that, but I see you mention something about it in this paper: http://milesmathis.com/entang.html.
MM: Lloyd, I don't have much to say about this. ... I haven't studied the photon cloud at all. Of course the whole system is a photon cloud, so they must mean that it has reached a density out there they can measure. I would be curious to discover why they can "see" that photon cloud but not the normal charge field cloud. We would have to study the actual operations of measurement.
Quasar Light Shows Rotational Velocity? LK: Do you have any papers discussing photon orbital angular momentum? I'm not clear what it means, but I found a paper, Photon orbital angular momentum in a plasma vortex, at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3221v3.pdf. I'm wondering if it supports your finding that cosmic redshifts can be caused by photons encountering ions. Toward the beginning it says:
It is well known that photons can carry not only intrinsic spin angular momentum (SAM), which is associated with their polarization state, but also extrinsic orbital angular momentum (OAM) [1]. ... It is also known that quantum OAM states are associated with spherical wave functions [4], and can be excited by pointlike sources. Only recently photon OAM started receiving considerable attention, when it was found that they can be associated not only with spherical waves but also with cylindrical waves that can be easily produced by laser sources. - ... [I]n a laser beam the Laguerre-Gaussian modes correspond to well defined OAM modes, and ... these photon modes cannot only be measured as a photon beam property [5, 6], but can also be detected at the single photon level [7].... - The possibility of studying space plasma vorticity remotely by measuring the OAM of radio beams interacting with the vortical plasma was pointed out in Ref. 9. Here we analyze this possibility theoretically by studying the exchange of angular momentum between a plasma medium and a photon beam. ...
- The final paragraph says this:
To our knowledge, this is the first theoretical work dealing with photon OAM in the context of plasma vorticity. We have studied the propagation of electromagnetic wave beams in an isotropic plasma, and we have discussed two distinct physical conditions: a helical disturbance in static plasma, and a rotating plasma vortex. We have shown that, in both cases, a cascading process of OAM transfer between the plasma and a photon beam can be achieved. For static plasma perturbations with a finite helicity there is no photon frequency shift. Only the total angular momentum of the photon beam is modified. In contrast, for a rotating plasma perturbation without any helical perturbation, photon OAM states are excited with photon frequency shifts that are multiples of twice the plasma rotation frequency. These distinct features can be used as an additional diagnostic method of the plasma properties, and can be useful in the context of both space and laboratory plasma.
* Does this mean that photons can tell the rotational frequency of cosmic bodies? Would the shifts be only redshifts?
MM: As for angular momentum, my theory gives photons real multiple spins, so of course it would explain this data. I can't say precisely how without studying the data, of course, and I haven't done that. I am glad that someone is admitting that photons have spin. This should be difficult for the mainstream to deal with.
hertz
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
must have got him thinking about photon clouds lloyd...here's a brand new paper that addresses the heliocentric current sheet: http://milesmathis.com/helio.pdf
and some highlights this mob might appreciate:
...when I present my unified field equations, I am always told by the mainstream that there isn't enough E/M in the universe to make a difference. They want to keep their gravity-only celestial mechanics that they inherited from Laplace centuries ago, so they have to ignore even their own evidence. This Current Sheet has been known since 1965, and other evidence is much older than that.
They point to the small electrical current, and say that is negligible. But of course that is unbelievably negligent of them to say that. They don't ask themselves what current is, I guess, or don't care. Current doesn't run through charge, it runs through ions. In other words, I have defined charge as being mediated by real photons, and E/M is mediated by ions. You have two levels of energy transport here, and they ignore that. They treat charge just like E/M, but charge underlies E/M, it isn't equivalent to it. If you have photons but no ions, you will have charge but no current...
To see mainstream physicists continue to assign all new things to dark matter is perverse, considering that they already have a field that contains it and explains it, without mystery. Why would they do that? Well, in addition to the ascendance and takeover of science fiction, we have the longstanding fact that physicists do not want to rewrite their field equations again. They had enough trouble adding Relativity to them, and they don't want to add charge, too. It would require too much work (they think). They think they have proof of the gravity-only field (since their equations work pretty well), and this allows them to keep the field they inherited from Laplace centuries ago. Besides, they just spent decades belittling all the "cranks" who wanted to add charge or E/M to the field. The Velikovsky affair is still warm in some places, and to admit Velikovsky was even partially right about anything is too painful for them. So it is easier to hide and misdirect than to look directly at the evidence in front of them. However, I have done the work for them, and it turns out they can keep a lot of their old prize equations. The revolution will turn out to be a lot less messy than they have thought.
