[Note to reader: I think that many people are daunted trying to understand Miles Mathis’ theories on physics because his work is prolific, spanning well over 6,000 pages and hundreds of papers. I think it’s high time someone tried to synthesize and present this work in a condensed and more accessible fashion. The post below represents a start, but it is woefully incomplete. It was initially part of a paper that tried to use Miles’ theories to unlock the mysteries of “free energy.” Here is a link to that original paper. I am asking for people who are familiar with his theories to help expand, improve, correct and generally upgrade the text. If you have any suggestions of things to add or change please add a comment below. Or if you want to take a more active, hands-on role in this crowdsourcing effort, I have created a google document of this post for people to work on collectively. If you want editing privileges, just send me an e-mail and I’ll send you a link. If I don’t know you then please also introduce yourself and a few words about why you feel you will be able to help. And please be patient waiting for a reply — I’m a busy guy!]
This document is intended as a primer on the scientific theories of Miles Mathis, an independent, self-taught polymath who has rebuilt physics from the ground up. Miles is unique in that he started from scratch and questioned everything from first principles, going back to Euclid. He has dug into the equations and original writings of Newton, Farraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman, etc., emerging with improvements and deep new insights. Before standing on the shoulders of giants to try to see farther than them, he first peered over their shoulders and checked their work. As astonishing as it sounds, he has found fundamental errors and leaps of logic in all of their work and corrected it, delivering a truly mechanical theory of physics (without abandoning relativity). It might be said that he has created a new physics by fixing the old one. His writing style is lucid, straightforward, accessible and almost always polemical.
He has applied his theory to a wide range of phenomena, including offering elegant and compelling solutions to the mysteries of dark matter, superconductivity, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, the double-slit experiment, the Proton Radius Puzzle, the Vacuum Catastrophe, the Pioneer anomaly and the Casimir effect, as well as explaining beta decay, neutrinos, nuclear magnetic resonance, Brownian motion, ice ages, the tides, the Meissner effect, major solar anomalies, celestial mechanics, etc. His theory explains why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does (along with Planck’s constant, the fine structure constant and a bunch of others), what causes gravity, why photons travel at c, why light is quantized, why E=mc2, why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a proton, what is the origin of permittivity, where magnetism comes from and how it works mechanically, where mass comes from, and on and on.
Miles argues that the Copenhagen interpretation was wrong and that the theories that emerged from it (Quantum mechanics, QED, QCD) are on the wrong track. In so doing, he has also done away with the theories underlying quantum mechanics, electrodynamics & chromodynamics (and hence the bulk of 20th century theoretical physics) in one fell swoop, without dismissing most of their experimental results. I have christened his theoretical perspective, ‘Mathisian physics,’ because I believe it is every bit as revolutionary and comprehensive as Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. For anyone steeped in years or decades of mainstream physics, giving this document a fair reading will require a deep breath and a truly open mind.
Above all, please do not judge his theory or work based on my rudimentary and overly simplistic summary. I also may have misunderstood certain aspects of his theory, so my account likely contains errors. You need to read and assess his papers for yourself, many of which I link to below. Now, with those caveats out of the way, let’s proceed
MATHISIAN PHYSICS: THE BASICS
Miles insists on a mechanical theory of physics involving material objects in the real world and believes that math should be used as a tool to help us explain the actual physical movement and interaction of those things. In other words, he has set out to construct a truly mechanical theory wherein interactions are based on the movement and contact of particles that have mass and physical extension (size). He shows that the history of physics is littered with examples where, because physicists couldn’t explain why things worked the way they did, they simply used math to describe it, then mistook their mathematical descriptions for actual physical theories. Think of magnetic charge and the magnetic field. What are they? How do they work? We don’t really know. We have Maxwell’s field equations that can describe them, but we don’t understand how they work, and we’ve made up more and more abstract, non-mechanical notions to explain it (like so-called messenger photons). Instead of using math as a tool to describe how the physical world works, we’ve mistaken the math for the physics, and the problem has just snowballed into an avalanche that tends to blind and suffocate anyone trying to climb the mountain of truth. Establishment physics has managed to muddle through by inventing ever-fancier math to describe and accomodate, without really explaining, experimental results that would seem to contradict their theories.
TWO FUNDAMENTAL FORCES OR FIELDS
To start with, Miles shows that there are really only two fundamental forces, gravity and charge, (where charge underlies electro-magnetism; he argues that the strong and weak nuclear forces do not exist as such but are derived from charge). He has unwound Newton’s equation describing the law of gravitation (F = GMm/r2) and shown that it is actually an equation that unites two fields: gravity and the charge field. (See this paper for a long treatment of this issue: http://milesmathis.com/uft.html; see this paper for a brief gloss: http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html; this one on how it relates to understanding the moon’s gravity http://milesmathis.com/moon.html; and here is one that explains G, the gravitational constant http://milesmathis.com/g.html and another on unifying or relating constants G, k and alpha: http://milesmathis.com/k.pdf).
I should note here that the preface for Miles’s first book was written by Tahir Yaqoob, PhD, an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University and NASA, who also was the one who encouraged Miles to publish his work in book format. He wrote: “as far as I know, Miles is the first person to propose and begin to investigate the idea that Newton’s fundamental gravitational equation already has electromagnetism embedded within it, and that what is needed is decomposition, not unification. Such a possibility has profound implications.” On the back cover he writes: “I am absolutely flabbergasted – my gut reaction is that the idea that G is a scaling constant between two fields in Newton’s equation is an absolutely brilliant insight.” (Also, for more on his support from mainstream scientists, here is an exchange Miles had with someone working on nuclear magnetic resonance: http://milesmathis.com/main2.pdf.)
Now, since electro-magnetism exerts a force, as we know, what is the cause of this force? And related, what causes charge?
B-PHOTONS AND THE CHARGE FIELD
Through rigorous logic and elegant equations, Miles has deduced the existence of tiny, sphere-shaped particles, which he has dubbed b-photons, which cause charge (and for that reason, I prefer to call them ‘charge particles’ and will use that term interchangeably with b-photons). Note that in his theory, photons have mass and size; they are not mass-less infinitesimal points that are nevertheless somehow able to exert force (as in current theory), because in a mechanical explanation there is no force without mass (F=ma). Or in other words, he argues that photons have mass, not just mass-equivalence, and he has pointed to many mainstream studies that support his view—for example here.
These b-photon particles constitute what Miles calls the “charge field,” and he has calculated they have a radius of 2.74 x 10-24 m and that space is filled with about 56 million of these b-photons per cubic meter, on average, though not with uniform density: http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf
(In a sense, the charge field could be likened to an aether, but whereas the aether is a mysterious or non-physical medium through which particles or energy moves, the charge field is actually composed of these tiny particles. And by the way, his calculations show that this field of b-photons accounts for the cosmic mass deficit, in other words, the charge field is so-called “dark matter/energy”: http://milesmathis.com/lostmass.html)
HEAT
In the broadest sense, heat is primarily a function of the local density of the charge field. As the b-photons that make up the charge field bang up against each other and other particles, they generate heat. More particles per volume means more heat (http://milesmathis.com/heat.html). And of course, entropy tells us that these particles will tend to flow from areas of higher charge field density to lower density areas.
From heat.html: “You can already see that heat is determined by the charge field. It can be transmitted either by the charge photons directly, by collision with a photon; or by collision between larger particles. In either case, the heat is caused at the primary level by the charge field. The charge field is either recycled, or it is internalized, creating more motion inside the atom or molecule.”
CHARGE
Charge is produced by the force of these tiny charge particles, which Miles calls “bombardment photons” or b-photons. (In fact charge can be defined as the sum of the force exerted by these photons, so we can say that charge is the summed mass of the photons.) But if these photons can only exert force by striking other objects — in other words, they only repel — how can charge cause attraction? Here is a deep insight: the ‘attraction’ we observe is actually just a relatively weaker repulsion. Think of the charge field like a wind. This wind acts on objects differently depending on their surface area. Because protons have a larger radius, and hence surface area, compared to electrons, they have more force applied to them from the charge particles of the wind (more particles are striking them), and hence they will be repelled further relative to the smaller electrons. This differential will give the appearance of attraction and repulsion, but this is only apparent. (See these papers for a clearer and more thorough exposition: http://milesmathis.com/charge.html and http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html. And here is a paper explaining magnetism: http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html.)
Note that this explanation does not tell us how the charge field ‘wind’ is created. In other words, if charge as a force is generated by the collective movement of a mass of b-photons in the same direction, what creates this “wind”? I’ll get to that in a bit, but first we need to understand Miles’s approach to sub-atomic particles.
SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES AS THE STACKED SPINS OF B-PHOTONS
Miles has theorized that in fact all subatomic particles (photons, electrons, mesons, baryons) are actually just these b-photons in various states of spin. Let me try to explain (this paper is helpful: http://milesmathis.com/super.html).
Imagine that the b-photon is this tiny sphere that is moving along at c (aka the speed of light) and spinning around on its own axis – as it happens, with a tangential velocity that is also equal to c. (See http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html and http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf).
Now imagine that b-photon smacks into another one indirectly (i.e. tangentially, as in not a direct hit). That will impart angular momentum. But (for reasons I won’t go into here but which do have an explanation) it is already at the limit of its angular momentum around its own axis, which we’ll call axis-a, so the particle starts spinning, say, end-over-end along the same axis that it is moving linearly, which we’ll call axis-x. This dual or ‘stacked’ spin would cause the sphere to move in a wave motion as seen from the side. Here is a visualization: https://youtu.be/lG1sCHVr4BU (This brilliant insight solves wave-particle “duality”; see the super.html paper I linked to above, and this paper: http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf.)
Now, you’ll notice that because the sphere is spinning end over end, the wavelength of the wave it traces through space is 2r (twice its radius). In fact it has to be 2r, because once the sphere is spinning about its own axis, additional spin along any other axis must be outside the gyroscopic influence of the first spin, which is a distance of 2r. (This also solves the mystery of why photons are quantized—see the photon2.html paper linked to above).
This process of ‘stacking’ spins can be continued, but with each additional stack, the effective radius has to be twice the ‘effective’ radius of the previous spin (I say effective because the particle stays the same size—but its effective radius is the larger radius of the spherical space it is spinning around in). So if we add another orthogonal spin, say along axis-y, it will have twice the radius of the x-axis spin, or in other words 4r, where r is the radius of the sphere (b-photon). And another spin, along the z-axis, would have a radius of 8r. The energy of this particle, in the form of angular momentum, increases with each additional level of spin (see http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html).
Now remember, this particle spinning about in all these directions is surrounded by other charge particles (b-photons) that are only spinning around their own axes and moving linearly. With 4 stacked spins (a, x, y and z), the b-photon has an energy and wavelength equivalent to an infrared photon. With 8 stacked spins, it has the energy equivalent to an ultraviolet photon (http://milesmathis.com/photon.html), and so on (see also http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html).
Here is a visualization of stacked spins (from http://milesmathis.com/neon.pdf):
SUBATOMIC PARTICLES AS CHARGE PUMPS
But as the b-photon begins to stack even more spins, its effective energy and radius will increase, and it will start to ‘suck’ some of the surrounding b-photons into its sphere of influence. The photon will become an electron. How does this happen? Here I will quote from http://milesmathis.com/photon.html:
“Still, how can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons? The short answer is that it is not emitting them, it is re-emitting them. As the photon gathers spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine. The spins allow it to trap other photons. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin [b-photons] cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons. It is now an electron. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.”
OK, so now we’re coming back to the question of charge from earlier about how directionality is imparted to the “wind” of the charge field. And the answer has to do with the way that charge particles (b-photons) are ‘sucked up’ into and ejected from these particles with all this stacked spin. I will refer to this as a pumping action.
And it’s not just electrons that pump charge through them, mesons and baryons do as well, and with more force. Protons and neutrons are just electrons with 4 additional stacks of spin. Every sub-atomic particle, then, has what I’ll call a specific spin state that determines its specific characteristics. (See http://milesmathis.com/quark.html where he uses stacked spin to replace quarks in QCD.)
Now let’s take a moment to consider this. We’ve got electrons and protons pumping charge in and out (neutrons do, too, but that charge is mostly re-“absorbed” or recycled by the neutron, see the quark paper above and this paper: http://milesmathis.com/neutron.pdf). The pumping is not random or directionless. For example, a proton will tend to pump charge particles in through each end and out through the sides (not of the particle itself, but relative to the orbital orientation of the highest spin level). The pumping-in creates a negative pressure gradient or potential, which not only sucks in b-photons (which will be pumped in relentlessly) but also electrons and, if the pumping action is very strong, potentially even ‘larger’ particles, like neutrons or protons (by slowly draining them of charge).
So that pumping action explains why electrons are drawn to protons. But the electrons and protons don’t collide with each other (something contemporary physics can’t really explain; see http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html). The reason for this is that the electron itself is pumping charge particles in and out, so it is also ejecting charge particles, which will push the proton away, (along with other electrons, which is why they repel each other). The placement of an electron with respect to the ‘intake’ of the proton affects the strength of the flow of charge particles. With an electron acting as a plug, so to speak, the flow of charge particles is lower (there’s something physically blocking them). Without the electron, the flow of charge is higher.
Now, the charge-pumping strength of electrons is much weaker than protons (which have both much more energy in the form of angular momentum and can contain/pump a larger volume of b-photons due to their much larger effective radius). And atomic nuclei, as a structured cluster of protons and neutrons, are even stronger charge pumps.
I am not going to go into too much detail on the formation and structure of atomic nuclei. I will say this: the reason that the protons and neutrons “stick together” in the nucleus is not due to the strong force (which doesn’t exist). It is due to the fact that protons and neutrons come together in configurations that align charge flow through the protons and neutrons and also expel charge particles away from the nucleus and the other nucleons, either in the form of b-photons or light (b-photons with additional spin levels). In other words, the charge is being pumped either through or away from the other nucleons, outside the nucleus, so the nucleons do not push each other away.
Miles has a lot more to say about the structure of the nucleus and the elements and other compounds. Here are a some key papers:
http://milesmathis.com/stack.html
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/uranium.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/deut.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/uf4.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/solidlight.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/meth.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/cinn.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/osmium.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/oxygen.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/phos.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/gas.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/dope.pdf
And for a neat paper that shows compelling mainstream evidence supporting his theory of nuclear structure, see this paper: http://milesmathis.com/orbiton2.pdf
Also see these papers on the size of the nucleus, the Bohr radius, the strength of gravity at the quantum level, the fine structure constant, the strong force, the weak force, mesons, neutrons, neutrinos, evanescent waves and quantum tunneling:
http://milesmathis.com/proton.html
http://milesmathis.com/bohr.html
http://milesmathis.com/magneton.html
http://milesmathis.com/quantumg.html
http://milesmathis.com/fine.html
http://milesmathis.com/fine2.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/strong2.html
http://milesmathis.com/gross.html
http://milesmathis.com/weak2.html
http://milesmathis.com/meson.html
http://milesmathis.com/neutron.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/neut2.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/evane.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/tunnel.pdf
I will quote from the stack.html paper to see how nuclear structure relates to LENR:
“The nucleus is not a formless conglomeration, like a bag of marbles, it is a well-defined stack, with many rules of stacking. [Ed: Note he is not referring here to spin stacking.] Beyond that, the nucleus can no longer be considered a simple ion, seeking electrons. It must now be considered a very complex engine. Why is it an engine, you may ask? Well, notice that the stack of protons [in the structure of the nucleus] still has a hole top and bottom. It has charge minima at both ends of the stack. These holes act as intake valves, through which the nucleus can capture other quanta. We may imagine that it can capture anything from photons up to electrons, and possibly even larger quanta. What does it do with these captured particles? It “burns” them, recycling them into a new charge field that it can re-emit. Just as I have already shown how other quanta are engines in this way, the nucleus is just a bigger engine. A single proton, for instance, is already an engine, since it can re-process the charge field through these charge holes, feeding off the charge field and quantum field and then excreting the charge field by flinging it off via its rotation. This explains where the charge field comes from: we do not need to theorize that it is created from nothing by the proton, we simply allow that it is infinitely recycled. The same thing applies to the nucleus. The nucleus can also capture its own charge field through these charge minima and then re-emit it.
“If this is true, then the various quantum beasts, including the periodic zoo of nuclei, are not only engines, they might almost be called alive, since they eat and excrete the charge field. Not only that, but they eat and excrete one another. The protons and nuclei aren’t just passive valves through which pass the photons of the charge field. No, it appears that the protons and nuclei can eat electrons as well, digesting them by stripping off outer spins, and turning them into charge photons. Yes, a certain number of lucky electrons get caught in the whirlpool, and achieve a limited stability in the shells. But any electrons too high or too low for the whirlpool get sucked into the charge minima at the ends of the nucleus, and are turned into photons.”
[1] As quoted by Miles Mathis in http://milesmathis.com/rain2.html. For a provocative theory of what causes rainbows and why they bend down, see: http://milesmathis.com/rainbow2.pdf.
Cutting Through the Fog 
Thanks for the effort to make this more accessible to us laypeople!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Josh,
I am almost ashamed to post this comment, but then that is TPTB intention. So, at the risk of being exposed as an idiot, but one who is open to understanding,perhaps you or others can help here.
I think I speak for many, when I say we were taught just enough math, physic, etc at school for it to be of no use in our development, or in our life. Sure we were taught enough to believe these fields had produced (produce) the greatest thinkers of our time! These thinkers had discovered XYZ, and these discoveries gave us the following understandings about how stuff works. Except this last part was never really communicated except through bit and pieces, jumbled ramblings and endless numbers on a blackboard.
In some ways, my education on these topics, or lack thereof, might be helpful as I can approach Mile’s work with an almost blank state. What would be helpful, paraprashing the NASA guy who wrote the intro for the book, is an explaination as to why MM’s work has profound implications. Maybe only broadstrokes are possible, but something along the lines of: 1) The thinking pre Miles has been XYZ, and this is important because it means that when we (insert real world example) happens we think it is because of XYZ? 2). Miles shows XYZ is ? and it is important because (insert real world example) happens it is because of ? and the implications on other aspects of our lives are ????.
I am not sure if the above is possible, but thought I would ask just in case.
Thank you Josh for hosting all of us and for all your efforts in trying to help us kickstart our education.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose I could come up with many examples. One problem here is that because Miles’ work has been publicly shamed by the mainstream in their attempt to silence him, there have not been many real-world applications of his work, so most of my examples would be hypothetical. But I will mention the closest thing to that I am aware of to a real-world example. I’ll try to follow your template:
1. Current theories of the nuclear atom give it no structure. It is just theorized as a kind of agglomeration of protons and neutrons that are stuck together in a formless mass by what is known as “the strong nuclear force.” This force is itself an absurd theoretical construction, but I won’t go into it here. You can read about Miles’ deconstructions of this theory in layman’s terms here and here.
This is important for many reasons, but in the example here, it is important in the field of what is called ‘nuclear magnetic resonance’ or NMR for short. This is a method of manipulating atoms with magnetic fields. There are many technologies based on NMR as well as ones under development. Since atoms are storehouses of immense amounts of energy, people are trying to find ways to extract this energy with the help of NMR (since NMR helps them to contain and manipulate atomic nuclei). However, since their theory of the atomic nucleus and the strong force are wrong, they are stymied in their use of NMR and progress has been incredibly slow. Of course they don’t mind because meanwhile billions of dollars of funding are being poured into projects like the Tokamak reactor, which uses magnetic fields in the process of trying to generate energy from nuclear fusion.
2. In Miles’ theory, atomic nuclei have a clear, defined, visualized and logical structure. Miles replaces the theory of the strong nuclear force with a theory that protons, neutrons and electrons are all channeling charge, where charge is simply defined as photons (although photons in Miles’ theory are different than photons in mainstream theory). By saying that the structure of the atom in his theory is logical, I mean that the structure follows from the rules of charge channeling by protons, neutrons and electrons.
This is important, because once you understand that atomic nuclei have a structure and once you understand what that structure is and why it has that structure, then you can manipulate atoms much more effectively, either via NMR or other means. This would allow us to, among many other things, safely extract energy from atomic nuclei. Imagine being able to use a teaspoon of water to cleanly replace the energy generated by a gallon of gasoline. And it would not take sophisticated machinery to do so. Imagine being able to assemble an essentially “free energy” device in your garage and use it to power your home for years harvesting rainwater to power it. If you stop to think for a bit about all implications on our lives of widespread DIY ‘free energy’ production, all the problems it could solve, it is truly mindboggling.
The reason I used this as an example is that Miles posted on his science site excerpts from an e-mail exchange he had with a scientist who was working on NMR. I think if you read this post and this message, you will be easily able to follow the gist of their correspondence: http://milesmathis.com/main2.pdf
I hope this helps. And as for your note of thanks: you are most welcome! I am delighted to be provided with this opportunity and hope to make the best of it within my limited resources of time and money.
LikeLike
Just a small note to newer readers of Miles’ scientific works — you really don’t need to be a physicist to have a deep appreciation for these theories. I have read all 6000+ pages of essays and I am not a student of the maths or the sciences. I now have a profound understanding of the physical world around us — I might add one that is more rigorous than those who have been taught “classically” in the universities. If you gloss Wikipedia pages in search for any sense on the biggest topics in the field, you will find yourself disappointed!
That’s not to say I understand the blackboard-filling theorems of Hamilton but why would you want to? From this vantage point it seems like sciolism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
was going to comment this on the LENR drive doc but since that didn’t work and it has relevance to furthering Miles work in general I leave it here too.
I think a relatively easy first step to furthering Miles work for applied applications would be finding existing research/experiments that are eloquently explained by the “charge field” as opposed to having the goal of getting people to do research specifically in Mathisian physics. Seems logical right? With an “over-unity”(standard model) device being the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. LENR is a great example (but possibly edgy to some newcomers?) And like most of the example miles qives or has been given there is little experimental info. we can contribute or put to use
However my experience/research lies more in difficult to explain phenomenon arising from EM resonances. I’ve screened many of these inventions to see if there’s anything real here or it’s just a psy-op. And there are tons of stupid scams no doubt. This is the most promising researcher I’ve found yet, and he gives lots of anomalous mainstream research to explain his results centering around Tunnel Magneto Resistance. If I remember right tunneling is equivalent to jumping to a higher spin state according to miles. And with all this new Mathisian atomic and subatomic geometry there are sure to be resonances we can exploit. The following link will be of some use to those that can speak fluent Mathisian.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404225810/https://pesn.com/2013/08/03/9602351_TMR-Effect–Tunnel_MagnetoResistance–New_Source_of_Clean_Energy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This looks interesting. When you say that the google docs didn’t work, were you on the e-mail list I sent it to? Do you want me to add you?
LikeLike
Consider the sections contained in the Primer thus far:
Introduction
MATHISIAN PHYSICS:
THE BASICS
TWO FUNDAMENTAL FORCES OR FIELDS
B-PHOTONS AND THE CHARGE FIELD
HEAT
CHARGE
SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES AS THE STACKED SPINS OF B-PHOTONS
SUBATOMIC PARTICLES AS CHARGE PUMPS
Comment. I have no doubt of your capabilities; however it appears you’ve jumped right into assembling a charge field encyclopedia and are getting lost in the details. I’ve been there. Your concise summary is adding complexity.
Suggestion. Please consider using Miles’ http://milesmathis.com/index.html THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS as the basis for the Physics Primer. I offers many advantages. The Index’s Sections are already clearly organized and can accommodate all the ideas you’ve included thus far. All papers are listed, described, referenced and linked. We could expand each section to include: commentary, specific examples, articles, papers, animations, simulations, outside links, etc. The Primer may also include higher level summary pages.
I hope you don’t mind me throwing this idea out for general consideration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s great, Airman. And I think it’s good to have this conversation out in the open in case anyone else wants to add their two cents. Here is what I wrote in the e-mail I sent to people who expressed a willingness to pitch-in: “I think we should first brainstorm on how it should be changed and expanded. The thing was written with a very specific audience and goal in mind, which is not necessarily what you’d want to do with an introduction/primer. So I’m open to the idea of radically changing it. My ego isn’t in this at all, so if you think it needs to be radically redone, go ahead and say so. Once we figure out what changes should be made or things added, we can then volunteer to take on different parts of that task.”
I’ll think over what you said here and add more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think as a primer, conciseness and brevity are generally important. Engage the reader, and assume they know little or nothing about the topics.
“What is electrical charge? What IS electricity? What is magnetism? What is heat?
Scientifically, these should be simple, basic answers and yet nowhere are these answers found in the mainstream with any level of detail, accuracy, or credibility. How can a – sign or a + sign cause repulsion or attraction? How can electricity move at nearly the speed of light if it’s electrons moving? How do magnets cause attractions or repulsions? Why does heat actually rise, here on Earth?”
There needn’t be one end-all, be-all “primer” for anything, but I think hitting the simplest and most well-known wrong answers from the mainstream would help lead people in a bit better? Think of the children! =D
LikeLike
Maybe think about it like a “kids book” or at that level? My mind automatically went to something like The Creature From Jekyll Island by Mr. Griffin. Maybe using the planets an example too since most people are a blank slate for why they act the way they do? Just thinking out loud.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, the planets and their orbits as explained and expanded-upon by Mathis are among the most powerful and telling victories of his charge field, for me. Nobody else has ever physically explained orbits, inclinations, and tilt before with any accuracy, but Miles knocks it out the park. Especially regarding Uranus’ tilt.
I’m constantly humbled and impressed by how elegantly his charge field explains all kinds of phenomenon that previously were just magical mysteries (to modern science). I see it everywhere now, especially in how my plants grow as a very near-to-hand example. It’s amazing stuff. I’m not a trained botanist (yet!) but it’s one of the most dear to my heart examples of how his physics can help us.
LikeLike
Where is the botanical miles info? I’m getting more into plants too. I remember something about the earths charge field helping send water up the tree but that’s about it.
LikeLike
Yes, his paper on xylem and phloem is the one I was referencing. He doesn’t write much about botany otherwise, perhaps Taos isn’t a great place for gardening? But I’ve had a few discussions with Miles about the topic in emails. Working on some experiments with focusing charge for plants, but it’s slow growing. 😉
I meant that I see the effects of charge more often now in my plants, not that he’d written more on the topic.
LikeLike
I agree His explanations of The Plot was really clear. How can we save MWM from having to do iot all himself?
LikeLike
This GIF helped me understand the wave particle duality before I found Nevyns-Lab.
https://giphy.com/gifs/quantum-mechanics-qed-qcd-3izax4svkq4fZj30GX
LikeLiked by 1 person
Miles Mathis is a crackpot.
LikeLike
Harry Hab is a has been. See ya!
LikeLike
Great start to making sense of Miles huge body of work so that those new to his ideas don’t get lost in the maze. My two-penn’orth, for what it’s worth, is that if you want to get your message across you need to follow three simple steps. Tell them what you’re going to tell them (summary). Tell them (your current WIP on Miles work). Tell them what you’ve told them (summary). I also think showing more of Miles explanatory diagrams would be helpful for those people who learn best through visualisation, like me.
Many thanks for undertaking this onerous task and please keep up the good work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris, this is exactly the kind of helpful, constructive feedback I’m looking for. THANK YOU!!
LikeLike
Josh, feel free to use any of my videos if you think they’ll help, in your main post or revisions. As always though, Miles or Nevyn are the ones who know best about my accuracy, so perhaps a caveat “Artist’s Rendition” or something would be in order. I make plenty of mistakes. But I always ask The Guys first before I share vids, though there are older revisions on my Vimeo page still that are flawed. This one seems to have the stamp of approval so far, though!
LikeLike
Hi Jared,
Thanks for the efforts to visualize this.
Few questions on the animation (assume proton=yellow, neutron=green, electron=blue):
– what do the red showers represent? Photons/anti-photons? Why at top/bottom?
– can you visualize proton/neutron spins as well?
– Looks like neutron charge streams are all around, should’nt they be north/south?
Thanks,
Steven
LikeLike
SIMULATE REGULAR EXPLOSIVES?
Jared, I just saw the brief simulation you did last year for an atom bomb or nuclear bomb. Could you do a similar simulation for any other explosives, like TNT, nitroglycerin, C4 etc? For the nuclear explosion, could you add a label to each neutron before and after collision, showing the velocity or force of each? Could you do similar labeling for the particles of other explosives too?
LikeLike
I enjoyed the summary very much. it’s nice to see others who are as attached to miles as I am.
LikeLike
Thanks, Larryjoe. Unfortunately this crowdsourcing effort did not yet take off. It is laying fallow for the moment. I didn’t have the time and energy to lead the effort last summer. Let’s see where things go this year. I still think it’s very important. Reading through Miles’ papers is a daunting challenge, and it would be very helpful to develop a comprehensive primer.
LikeLike
Good grief. I was curious about the view of hard-core mainstream “science” on the photon, and took a peek at the preface to a book entitled “Light — The Physics of the Photon” by Ole Keller.
The first sentence gave me hope, Johanna, before the morning come…
“I have often been asked what is a photon?”
Yes, I thought, and now he (I’m assuming Ole is a bloke) is going to answer the question he poses. I quote…
Good grief. He then produced an equation that, I think, is a clever mathematical joke and wasted on this puny little mind of mine. Anyway, I decided to read on and that’s when the trap was sprung. Luckily I attended a Defence Against the Dark Arts class given by Miles Mathis and I was ready for it.
He goes on like that for a while but I had already side-stepped the rolling stone and on it went. Anyway, it seems to me to be the usual treachery wrapped in common-sense — it sounds reasonable but we know Bohr was a dissembling sophist for goodness sake!
Anyway, the lesson I take away from this short horror story is to read this Primer as soon as possible.
LikeLike
Can anyone explain if there is a difference between sunlight photons and charge photons? I got to the conclusion of Miles’ Seasons paper http://milesmathis.com/season.pdf and he discusses sunlight and charge as if they were different. But they are both composed of photons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just saw this question. They are the same. Both photons. But one is coming down and the other is going up. Also, the charge coming up is mainly infrared, while the light coming down is both infrared and visible, and other things. Charge coming up only occasionally gets boosted into the visible, as with earthquake lights and similar mysterious phenomena.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I just posted an update to my negative thermal expansion paper, adding a bunch of amazing nuclear diagrams. Even those of you who don’t normally read my science papers should take a look, just for fun.
LikeLiked by 2 people
These updates are great, Miles. Gives me some really cool ideas on how to further diagram things, to make it a bit easier on the layfolk. Not that it’s the job or task at hand to do so, but I always find it a challenge and a worthwhile endeavor. I’d really love to show the charge STREAMS as well as the subatomics, you know?
LikeLike
Yeah, more arrows would be good. If I could create these diagrams myself I would have more control over them. It is difficult giving detailed instructions via email. Those models still aren’t perfect, but good enough.
LikeLike
I just posted a long paper by Oostdijk on Solar Cycle 25, as it is heating up. It is very exciting to see us hitting a spike during Jupiter/Saturn conjunction, since it is strong evidence of my theory and strong evidence against the mainstream models, such as they are.
LikeLike
Wiki’s table of predictions of ‘strenght’ for cycle 25 has no Miles’ prediction now.
But sill holds NASA’s shambles prediction of 30-50% lower then cycle 24.
LikeLike
Great paper, Miles. You should post it at your art site, not just the science site.
LikeLike
Done, thanks for the suggestion.
LikeLike
Excellent paper, and all the solar cycle papers together are some of the most damning evidence produced against the mainstream. Especially when one considers this,
“We can start at Wikipedia, where we find a list of predictions for solar cycle 25. It is a travesty that Miles is not included on that list since he started working on cycle 25 predictions in 2014, publishing them freely on the web without paywall, including a detailed explanation of the mechanical model and complete calculations (which I assisted him in 2020). His articles on this come up on any Internet search, very highly listed.”
There really is no way for anyone to argue why the most accurate – indeed, the only accurate – predictions, well known to Google, would be ignored by mainstream sources, in favour of incorrect models, other than that the game is rigged, on a highly coordinated scale.
LikeLike
Well said. This gave ’em the edge in all things. However, on an individual level Miles Mathis has knocked over the gaming board. We can now engage more with reality and less with phantom worlds.
LikeLike
Very enjoyable to read about the misreporting of sunspots and how Miles beats the mainstream with his solar cycle predictions, all the while imagining the sweating incompetent thieves scramble to start changing their predictions and get ready to fudge more data. Such people don’t know when to quit and so I look foward to an entertaining year.
LikeLike
Mainstream is now trying to save their face regarding SC25 strength.
In this paper, titled “Overlapping Magnetic Activity Cycles and the Sunspot Number: Forecasting Sunspot Cycle 25 Amplitude” (published 24th November 2020), authors blame sudden activity uptick on Magnetic activity cycles and their terminator points interacting with sunspot cycles.
As if that mathematical fudging could explain the cause behind solar activity. All, just to lead your eyes away from large planets.
https://archive.ph/Tp4uQ#selection-257.0-257.99
“Our method predicts that SC25 could be among the strongest sunspot cycles ever observed, depending on when the upcoming termination happens, and it is highly likely that it will certainly be stronger than present SC24 (sunspot number of 116) and most likely stronger than the previous SC23 (sunspot number of 180).”
Now that the spewing Sun has caught them with their pants down they are panicking to retro ‘forecast’ the SC25. Of course their latest ‘forecast’ is now overcompensating. They like extremes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SC23 + SC24 = SC 47
hmm …
Spot number 180…
hmm hmm
Spot number 116
because 133 was too much, i guess or may be because, in a mirror, it makes 11 9
You really trust these guys ?
LikeLike
Notice also that McIntosh is using in the Figure No.2 (bottom) of his paper “A conceptual drawing of the hypothesized [magnetic] activity bands of M[odel]2014 that are the underlying structure of the extended solar cycle.”
Artist’s impressions are very important tool for ad hoc ‘theories’. General public is satisfied after all, I guess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Has anyone here heard from Nevyn recently? His website is offline and he hasn’t posted to his forum since the 30th of October.
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t633-nevyns-lab-com-is-down
LikeLike
Can you demonstrate Pi = 4 using a dot on a spinning wheel as the thing you’re measuring? I was reading up on how bicycles work and suddenly thought about a dot placed at the end of a bicycle spoke. Thanks.
LikeLike
This thread may help explain real pi: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t648-on-miles-mathis-claim-4-in-any-all-kinematic-situations
LikeLike
If anyone would like to discuss Miles’ Saturn theory, I started a discussion here: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t652-great-flood-catastrophism-miles-saturn-theory
He says humans likely originated on Saturn’s moon, Titan, which could explain why ancient myths say Saturn was the primary god in the sky.
He also says Earth doesn’t show enough evidence of major cataclysms to account for what the myths say. But I disagree. The Earth suffered major cratering like the Moon at the same time, but global flooding buried most of the craters on Earth.
LikeLike
Feel free to discuss here or there, either place. Thanks.
LikeLike
Does Miles really embrace the Titan moon theory??
LikeLike
See his April Addendum to his Holy Grail paper. Or see my link above, which has a copy of his Addendum.
LikeLike
I was looking for http://www.nevyns-lab.com and it’s not there anymore. Does anyone know where it may have moved to? I was really hoping to share the table of animations of the various nuclei.
LikeLike