The physics of atomic nuclei, chemical bonding, light, gravity, electromagnetics (Miles Mathis)

[ThePythonicCow]

I've read perhaps a dozen of some four or five hundred of Miles physics articles. There's a long way to go .

Here's one that might make sense to a few others: QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT.

In it, he makes mention of his basic model, of a world build on photons, out of which other sub-atomic particles and the various effects, fields, forces and such are constructed. For Miles, a photon is a tiny physical spinning entity, that is typically moving some way (along some vector of direction and velocity) or other. if a pair of photons are entangled, then Miles takes that to mean that somehow they have been arranged or selected to have opposite spins. Which has which spin is not known until one of them is measured, but as soon as that's done, one can know that the other one, perhaps hundreds of miles away, has the opposite spin.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Paul (here)
I've read perhaps a dozen of some four or five hundred of Miles physics articles. There's a long way to go .

OK - I've spent much of the last week continuing to read Miles Mathis.

I've also gone back and re-read or re-viewed some of Robert Distinti's work.

The two make an interesting contrast.

Miles Mathis is a sharp tongued critic, in both (1) his long running series of articles (at http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html) exposing the fraud, deception and covert manipulation behind well known people and events, and (2) in his fifteen years of articles and papers (at http://milesmathis.com) exposing "the greatest standing errors in physics and mathematics". As Miles writes of himself in his latest paper Brad Pitt's Genealogy, "I was born with a hot temper, and it has not mellowed with age." He has an encyclopedic knowledge and memory for facts, names, details and connections. Miles Mathis exposes a long list of blatant and devastating errors in the conventional physics of the last century. But Miles is not easy reading ... he mentions a blizzard of names, dates, details, events, experiments as if the reader knows them already, and will immediately recognize them and their relevance to the discussion, just by naming them. Miles is no teacher, and he has no patience for readers who "don't get it."

Robert Distinti (best webpage indexing his work is this post on Ethereal Mechanics) is quite different in temperament and strengths. Distinti has over thirty years of experience in one of the most difficult areas of electrical engineering, working with radio frequency signals in circuits, equipment, transmitters and receivers. He has a deep understanding of the practical tools, equipment and mathematics that can be used in this field. He's a disciplined researcher and a methodical, but deep thinking, physicist, rethinking the very foundations of electro-magnetic theory and practice, and of the nature of the aether underlying not just electro-magnetic phenomenon, but also gravity and matter itself. He's been working this problem for many years now, and he is one of the best. Physics is being reworked, from the ground up, and Distinti is a leader in that effort.

Both Miles and Robert are coming to the essentially the same conclusion: all that we see, touch, or feel, all matter and all fundamental physical phenomenon, from the sub-atomic to the inter-galactic, are built from an aether, which is real "stuff", but essentially electrical in nature. They agree that present day quantum mechanics, string theory, relativity, and variants have major, and in some cases devastating, flaws, and that institutional science is no longer about seeking the truth, but is about defending their positions of power and profit.

However there are key differences between the aethers that Miles and Robert propose.

Miles basic "particle", which he calls a "b-proton", where the "b" stands for bombardment, comes in only one flavor, and can only bump into things, and accumulate in spinning clusters.

Robert's ether consists of two basic "particles", which he calls "pretons" (thanking a nephew of his who was eight years old at the time for suggesting the name), that can be either positive or negative. A pair of them spinning around each other forms a photon, and pretons also form the three primary baryons of matter, electrons, protons and neutrons. This video introduces pretons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHzUs4xzEkY. An electron consists of two negative pretons, chasing each other around in a circle, and a proton consists of two positive pretons, chasing each other around in a circle.

Perhaps the most difficult property to incorporate into these sorts of theories is gravity.

• Einstein struggled for decades, without published success, to integrate his relativity theory of gravity with sub-atomic physics.
• Paul LaViolette's sub-quantum kinetics required a third kind of ether particle as a basis for gravitational effects.
• The Electric Universe theory suggests that gravity is caused by off-centered nuclei in the atoms of a large body, generating an electrical field.
• Miles Mathis says that gravity is not objects trying to fall into the earth, but the earth expanding rapidly up into those objects.

I will confess that I have not found any of the above theoretical models for gravity satisfactory ... though it may well be that I am misunderstanding some of them.

Robert Distinti has the one model for gravity that seems right to me.

Robert Distinti has electrons being negative because they consume positive pretons (electrons need energy to keep their two negative pretons spinning), and he has protons being positive because they consume negative pretons, as their energy source. Neutrons consume both positive and negative pretons. A large mass, such as planet earth, has a very large number of electrons protons, and neutrons, all consuming ether. This creates an ether wind, coming into the earth from all sides. So just sitting here at my computer, I am in an ether wind that is accelerating downward, into the earth, at 9.8 meters / second². That is entirely equivalent to being in a space ship, engines on, accelerating forward at 9.8 meters / second². Either way, my backside is pressed down into my chair with a weight of a couple hundred pounds.

That is, for Distinti, the gravity of a large body is the effect of an accelerating ether wind, being consumed by the body, from all sides.

Distinti is also reworking and correcting Maxwell's equations, and developing models, with mathematics and practical experimental results, that explain inductance and capacitance. He's been inventing a reworking of matrix algebra so that it has proper multiplication and division operators, which he will be using to more elegantly express the mathematics in his models.

===

In short, Miles Mathis is a sharp tongued critic, working in a variey of areas, and Robert Distinti is a clear thinking theorist, experimental scientist and practical engineer, focused on sharing a substantially improved understanding of electricity, magnetism, gravity, and matter.

Mathis is good reading if you've spent years, even decades, reading in the conventional physics of our time such as quantum mechanics and relativity, so are familiar with many of the theories and experiments and explanations. But his "new model" to replace conventional physics is too simplistic, with only rather crude algebra for its mathematics, with a very dubious (in my view) explanation of gravity, and with no experimental results to validate it.

Distinti does not spend as much time debunking current conventional physics, and has little interest in covering all the other areas that Mathis covers. But Distinti's research methods, his philosophy of science, his use of equipment, mathematics, and computer software, his knowledge of conventional electro-magnetic theory and practice, and the coherence and completeness of his theory are all very strong. He has been patiently building what I expect will become a classical work of physics, in coming centuries.

I will continue reading Mathis' articles, both his conspiracy theories on events and famous people, and his physics critiques. But I doubt I will continue to recommend Mathis' physics work here, as it is a flawed, but briliant, work that few will enjoy reading, unless they have been reading such topics for decades.

Distinti has been spending this year, and will likely be spending next year as well, developing yet another presentation of his theories, which he continues to refine as he goes. When he gets far enough along in this present reworking I expect I will be recommending it to others on Avalon interested in such physics.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Paul (here)
I will continue reading Mathis' articles, both his conspiracy theories on events and famous people, and his physics critiques. But I doubt I will continue to recommend Mathis' physics work here, as it is a flawed, but briliant, work that few will enjoy reading, unless they have been reading such topics for decades.

There is however (at least) one analysis of Miles Mathis that I recommend: his analysis of what's behind the Standard Model of Particle Physics. This model has joined the Periodic Table of Elements as one of the more enduring orderings of matter. The Period Table orders the various kinds of atoms (hydrogen, helium, and on up), and the Standard Model orders the various kinds of sub-atomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons and other such) that make up an atom, or that are detected by "atom smashers".

It was Kelvin Abraham's effort in Tetryonics to explain the ordering and properties of the particles in this Standard Model that initially attracted me to his work. However his work seemed too enamored of the coincidences of the geometry of triangles for my tastes, and I ceased reading him.

Robert Distinti dismisses the sub-atomic particles found by the detectors in atom smashers, giving such particles no more interest than a master watch maker might take in the broken bits of metal produced by repeatedly smashing a gold watch with a large hammer. For Distinti, the only sub-atomic particles of interest are the electron, proton, and neutron.

Miles Mathis, however, with his keen sense of space and movement, and his understanding of the velocity, energy and spins of motion, comes into his own in this study. Miles builds up a model of the various sub-atomic particles using independent spins along one axis that goes through the center of his basic particle (the b-proton), and three more ("stacked", in his term) spins along orthorgonal axes, increasingly off-center, each outside the sphere of gyroscopic influence of any more inner spins. He calculates speeds, energies and particle stability with his "stacked" spins model, and nicely matches what has been measured by the particle physicists in their atom smashers.

Nice work, Miles. Thanks.

Here are three of Miles' papers, from late 2008, that cover some of his work in this area:

1. A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and a dismissal of the Quark
2. Unifying the Electron and Proton
3. Explaining Mesons without Quarks

The abstract from the third paper above explains, in Miles' terms, what he's doing here:

I show that mesons may be explained by stacked spins, without quarks or chromodynamics. I do a full analysis of the muon, the pion, the kaon, the tau, the D meson, the eta meson, the charmed eta meson, the bottom eta meson, the Z particle, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino. Also additional theory for neutrino oscillation.

[ThePythonicCow]

Also I would be remiss if I did not mention one other Mathis article: Rainbows, Prisms, and non-edge Diffraction: A Rehabilitation of Goethe.

If you are the sort who delights in the various colors of the spectrum, perhaps as an portrait painter using oil pigments, or perhaps as graphics image editor with a monitor that is carefully color calibrated (I am neither of these), then you might find the above article quite interesting.

As a bonus detail, it explains, in simple physical terms, how the speed of light (c) squared ended up in Einstein's famous equation E = mc².

As to how mass (M) ended up in Einstein's most famous equation, see Distinti's discussion (I don't have a link handy; it's probably in one of his Youtube videos, for which I don't have searchable transcripts) which replaces M with I, for inertia, which in Distinti's analysis is the resistance to changing velocity (aka accelerating) in an ether field, due to the inductive forces that ... er eh ... induce.

Distinti comes to the same conclusion as Mathis as to the significance of the speed of light (c) squared in Einstein's famous equation E = mc², in his 2007 paper New Gravity, and for essentially the same reasons. Both Distinti and Mathis view a photon of light traveling through space at the speed of light as a pair of etheric particles (which they call pretons or b-photons, respectively) spinning with a tangental velocity of the speed of light.

[TargeT]

Readers of this thread should go and watch Dr Strange for possible future application of photonic manipulation examples

This video fits in rather nicely on this thread:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=drXGJ3ZZdvc

Everything can be explained by science, including the "magics" of Dr Strange. Thor himself stated that they live in a place where magic and science are one in the same, and Dr Strange continues that statement. Today, I'm proving to you that the magics of Dr. Strange can all be explained with science.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by TargeT (here)
Readers of this thread should go and watch Dr Strange for possible future application of photonic manipulation examples

Those (perhaps just myself) who have understood and come to prefer the rethinking, from the ground (er eh, aether, aka ether) on up, of the nature of matter, energy, light, gravity and such that people such as Mathis and Distinti are working on will view this video in a quite different "light" than those (in the vast majority) who currently subscribe to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and derivatives thereof.

In short, in my altered view, Quantum Mechanics does not explain how the "magic" tricks of Dr Strange work. Rather Quantum Mechanics incorporates that sense of essentially inscrutable magic into the very foundation of our understanding of physical reality.

(But that video is for damn sure a heck of a lot more "viewable" than the scientific theses of Mathis, Distinti or myself <grin>.)

[TargeT]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
Readers of this thread should go and watch Dr Strange for possible future application of photonic manipulation examples

Those (perhaps must myself) who have understood and come to prefer the rethinking, from the ground (er eh, aether, aka ether) on up, of the nature of matter, energy, light, gravity and such that people such as Mathis and Distinti are working on will view this video in a quite different "light" than those (in the vast majority) who currently subscribe to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and derivatives thereof.

In short, in my altered view, Quantum Mechanics does not explain how the "magic" tricks of Dr Strange work. Rather Quantum Mechanics incorporates that sense of essentially inscrutable magic into the very foundation of our understanding of physical reality.

Yeah, but it gets people thinking in the right way and maybe even motivates some self research?

I tolerate alex jones for this reason.

Posted by Paul (here)
(But that video is for damn sure a heck of a lot more "viewable" than the scientific theses of Mathis, Distinti or myself <grin>.)

INFOTAINMENT... that's the way to get it done.

peek the interest with the "brain candy" stuff but mix in science and education... at 1.7 million views on that video already.. I think we have a clear sign of where we need to go when trying to spread information.

Now, being creative enough to do that.. Haha,, yeah...

Lots of good reference links on that youtube page, I should have posted them here:

[ThePythonicCow]

I am listening, for the umpteenth time, to the New Electromagnetism videos of Robert Distinti, Electromagnetism Foundation Series Playlist.

Damn - he's good.

I predict that my (not yet born) grandchildren will be learning this as their main course material for electricity and magnetism in their physics courses, and that what full professors of physics at MIT, Caltech, CERN, etc currently teach and research in the areas of electromagnetism, relativity, and quantum mechanics, will be relegated to the dustbin of silly delusions, joining Aristotle's earth centered cosmology and various flat earth theories.

Distinti has been pursuing this for over 20 years now, with 30 years of professional electrical engineering experience.

Distinti is working two levels of the problem at once:

• New Electromagnetism: reworking Maxwell's equations and related electricity, magnetism, and induction theory, explaining them all, including light, the speed of light, E = MC², inertia, gravity, and a wide variety of experimental data in a consistent framework. Everything, from sub-atomic particles to inter-galactic phenomenon is electromagnetic. There are no essentially distinct gravity, strong or weak forces. There is no mass distinct from electrically induced (inductive) inertia.
• Ethereal Mechanics: the nature of the underlying ether, composed of inertialess positive and negative pretons that form the basis of all the above mentioned electromagnetic phenomenon.

Distinti and Miles Mathis both conclude, in what appears to be entirely separate approaches, that photons of light are formed from a pair of ether particles (Distinti's pretons or Mathis' b-photons), spinning about a common center outside of either one. Distinti's work is further developed, in several ways, however.

[Snoweagle]

Am super pleased at your journey of discovery here. Thank you for sharing with the community:-)

Eventually, you will determine your own realisation and it will click together. Have no desire to sound condescending here but the "finding for yourself" negates engagement in fickle science arguments that proliferate the web. As you are now finding:-)

Haven't the time now to engage further today and I'd like to take a look at this Distinti's work first, so I metre my comments in "common" discourse.

(Just for the record my schoolboy and lifelong superhero has always been Dr Strange though my perception of him was immensely more esoteric than portrayed in the recent movie, which I too recommend)

[Snoweagle]

Have watched the conclusions of Distiniti work and it's very good. The presentation was very good too.
He's another electrical engineer and the conclusions are systemic results as we would expect and now familiar in the large part with other works in this line of research.

I interpret things differently to the method portrayed. Yeh, my way is different. And it is supporting by the systemic method too.

I believe when we look at the picture of Milky Way or any other spiral we are looking at depiction of the activity of the Neutron and the neutrino.

It's not the spiral that should be our focus, as it is what it is. It's the polarity that exists by it's existence.

I believe Dark Matter is nothing more than proportionally interacting magnetically measurable esoteric fields. The "time and space" thang It is absolutely pervasive to our existence. It dominates everything, without which no thing exists.

The spiral is indicative of the activity, the existence of the energy conversion that takes place at what we perceive or as measurable. It is not important!

What is important is the difference in the field that separates either side of the spiral. As above so below. We define this as polarity. When you have difference you implicitly have polarity. The Polarity governs the existence and creativity of the spiral form of the neutron and the Milky way. And us as well. It is pervasive.

When this polarity is resonated in a manner of our choosing we are able to manipulate how the spiral behaves. How it interacts with it's surrounding fields. Interacting, non interacting, dormant fields or otherwise, the performance of each neutron is entirely dependant on the performance of it's polarity.

It is this Resonating Medium of the polarity that is key to accessing free energy. (Do not experiment in this field in isolation or blindly, it is dangerous when done wrong and beneficial when done correctly too. Either way - Beware).

On the thread Dave LaPoint's Primer Fields thread people whinged, whined and 'awd that he hadn't produced the fourth and most revealing video. "What were we going to do now?".
He told everybody in the previous videos.
What is the source of your desire?
What is the source of your desire when you hunger?
What is the source of all your desire when you hunger for that is pure and right and good?
And if you were to raise your hands for this, the answer, how would you receive this gift?

Would you accept it in a cup or chalice?

Now go back and look at Dave LaPoint's Primer Fields again, now what do you see?

He even provided images of how manipulative these fields can be.

It's this spiral form that is the shape of neutron (the plane of all existence) is dependant on the resonating of the poles. This be-gets everything.

So returning to topic, Distinto's work is wonderful but I consider not the spiral form as important, as that that takes place at the boundary region of the poles, at the poles themselves and including non dependence on the performance or influence of the spiral. This is where there are many breakthroughs taking place right now.

By the way, resonating the poles is subject to rules, as all things are, and manifests itself by the hysteresis effect. Some changes are more manipulable than others when separated in this manner. Quick to rise, slow to fall and vice versa. Either, 'ither, or. It doesn't matter, it too is pervasive and manipulable as well.

So that's what I have to say. And I was only referring to the spiral significance being the "shape" of the neutron. A worm hole in time and space. Infinitely large and infinitely small simultaneously. And considered the polarity regions be the focus of our research and not the centre. We have been looking in the wrong direction with all our mensurable values of nonsense.

We can call this polar difference as Energy if you want. Polarity can be anything. So Energy, look up the forms of energy in use by mankind and how it is measured. Look up the definitions and laws all found and in use throughout science. Then find the common denominator. Whatya got:-)

So the tiniest neutron would be determined only upon the scale of our measurement techniques available to us at that time. The more we look, the more we find. As above so below. And it would always be a spiral. Infinitely large and infinitely small. The cosmos seeks equilibrium.

As I say, sort of what I believe to be true. Have fun:-)

[Snoweagle]

Another thing that you might like to investigate is Mensuration.

How are our constants defined in our science?
The root cause of our lack of understanding of our natural world.

General science is still using antiquated Victoriana terms of mechanical reference measures to define our existence which is corrupting our true understanding.

Just because Miles Mathis has written about the "errors or wrongs" in science doesn't make it definitive. Nor does it help the individual understand what the correct method is.

Mensuration is the measure of our dumbness. We need it to interact with one another in this matrix environment we have been raised. It isn't helping the transition of understanding of the way all things work.

The post #28 sums up the future of science and the right path. Yet setting out to find answers is not the solution, as what needs to be found, is the journey towards the answer as there may not be just the one.

Consider that there are no particles in the atom. There are only fields. So how are the fields produced, constructed or manifest?
Science depends on the "particle" dogma so multiple engineers can play by the same rules.

Miles and Distinto refer to this problem but from rules based on our mensuration conditioning. Our new youth must view a new paradigm and ignore the old ways.

[Snoweagle]

Here is Dan Winters Phase Conjugate page:
http://www.fractalfield.com/conjugategravity/
Lots of similar muses as others.

I draw your attention to the pdf Advanced Geometric Physics Solutions by Mark Rohrbaugh that is available under the label "What is Gravity".
http://www.fractalfield.com/conjugat...Sept112016.pdf

A lovely article. It is an example of the abuses of Mensuration in starting the science understanding on the wrong foot. Misdirection. And we have all followed it and continue to do so.
All the attributes are defined in terms of Mass, Length and Time. The core factors of mensuration. (Density, Volume, etc . . .)

Where is the charge? electrical charge? magnetism? polarity? They are referred to as existing and necessary though are undefined within the model.
These magically emerge later under Columbs law at page 38.

The issue I have here with all of this atomic bollocks in commercial use around us is that it is still defined by mechanical constants at the source and then merged to match real life electrical and mechanical experiments. When in fact the whole model must be defined in respect of the poles and the difference charge.

[silvanelf]

Posted by Paul (here)
Awesome. Miles Mathis may well understand how electrons, protons, atomic nuclei, gravity, electromagnetic fields, stars, ... are constructed better than anyone I've ever seen.

I took an arbitrary paper from Miles Mathis -- "Unifying the Electron and Proton" ...
and within just a minute I found a series of crucial flaws in that paper ...

In other words, most photons are spinning every way they can spin, axially and in the x,y, and z planes.

Huh? Spin points always in a specific direction. It seems that Mathis have no clue about the word "spinning".

We let the tangential velocity of a point on the surface of the electron reach v.

Mathis seems to believe that electrons are just "tiny balls" with a definite radius ... He is wrong.

What we find if we use my new equations is that the circumference is simply 8 times the radius. In kinematic or dynamic situations, we effectively replace π with 4.

It gets even "better" ... That claim "π = 4" is absolute hogwash.

As a bonus, I will now show that the magnetic moment of the electron and its electric charge are the same number. Currently, the two are measured in different SI units, making the comparison difficult. Logically, the two fields—magnetic and electric—should be measurable in the same units, such as Newtons or Joules.

You can't compare apples and oranges, they are different and they are not measurable in the same units!! By the way, "magnetic moment" means "magnetic dipole moment", which has a specific strength and a direction. On the other hand, "charge" is a scalar value. Mathis is an idiot.

It goes on and on ... so much nonsense within just a single paper!