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

[ThePythonicCow]

.
Summary:

Miles Mathis is developing a very interesting reworking of physics, from the ground up.

It is potentially a brilliant classic for the ages (but regarded with ridicule or ignored in the present.)

===

Our "modern physics", relativity and quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, is deeply deceptive and the truth understood by few of us.

Over my several years here, I have commented on, and sometimes enthusiastially promoted, various physicists, scientists and astronomers who are developing alternative theories.

These include:

• Paul LaViolette -- whose subquantum kinetics is fascinating, but still leaves me wondering as to the structure of light, matter and electro-magnetic fields
• Nassim Haramein -- whose physics I have criticized
• Robert Distinti -- whom I still follow closely, but is taking years to rework the equations of electro-magnetic fields
• Kelvin Abraham -- whose Tetryonics I first found intriguing, but I later dismissed
• Dave LaPoint -- whose Primer Fields I found briefly interesting
• Wal Thornhill -- whose Electric Universe is providing a fascinating reworking of astronomical physics using electro-magnetic fields and plasmas, instead of gravity

I have now found someone who is reworking physics at a particular level that I have been looking for - Miles Mathis.

I have already been posting, now and then, Miles comments on various historical people and events. He sees through fraud and intelligence operations better than perhaps anyone out there (or he's a tin foil hat conspiracy theory nut case who has gone further around the bend than almost anyone ... depending on your view point.) He has a keen eye for fabricated photographs (being a portrait artist for his day job). I love the guy's conspiracy work, though his geneological studies tend to bore me.

I have been trying to read Miles large work in physics for two or three years now, but made the mistake of trying to read the Kindle ebook versions of his work, which are difficult to read, due to the poor typographical setting of equations and display of images.

I just now, last week, started reading his work via his physics website, THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS.

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

Presently, I'm reading "Section 9. The ATOMIC NUCLEUS. Charge channeling and nuclear diagrams.", which has articles 312 through 343, on the above page, having skipped most of the earlier sections. I was looking for a physical model for how atoms and sub-atomic particles are formed from etheric flows. I am finding his model very persuasive.

I have not read and digested this enough to be able to present it any where nearly as clearly as Miles does himself, so the best I can do now is suggest others, with similar interests, check him out.

Here are the 10 Sections into which the 393 articles (encompassing 6066 pages) on that page are divided into:

===========

SECTIONS

0. OVERVIEW PAPERS and FOUNDATIONS

1. The UNIFIED FIELD. Newton, Lagrange, Coulomb and Maxwell all gave us UFT's.

2. RELATIVITY. Relativity is true; many of the equations are not. The muon, lightclock, Minkowski, Friedmann, Pound-Rebka, and the falsification of gamma.

3. CALCULUS. The calculus works, despite many fudges and cheats.

4. QUANTUM PHYSICS. Early mistakes, including superposition, entanglement, tunneling, nonlocality, Bohr's equations.

5. ELECTROMAGNETICS. Solid-state fudging, current, inductance. Also the Sun and planets. Tides. Bode's Law and interplanetary influences.

6. GRAVITY. Celestial Mechanics, Laplace, Allais, Cavendish, GOCE, BICEP2, plate tectonics, Roche, vacuum catastrophe, black holes.

7. QED and QCD. The quantum spin equation. Feynman, Higgs, neutrinos, Landau, mesons, fine structure constant.

8. LIGHT and CHARGE, including dark matter, photons, heat, the Rayleigh equation, blackbody radiation, rainbows, diffraction and refraction.

9. The ATOMIC NUCLEUS. Charge channeling and nuclear diagrams.

10. OTHER MAINSTREAM MISTAKES. Hawking, physics prizes, pi, Godel, Cantor, Olbers, Noether, Goldbach, string theory.

===========

Miles Mathis also has nearly another 300 newer papers and updates on his update page, which he continues to add to, as recently as last month.

Miles is totally non-conventional, and no doubt we would all find some of his work to be totally bogus. I recommend picking topics that one has interest in, and in which one is ready to take a fresh look, from the very "fabric of space-time" (a phrase that Miles would not accept) on up.

[Bill Ryan]

[araucaria]

Paul, thank you for introducing me to this guy a while back now. I have looked at some of his fake death theories, and some of it certainly sounds very persuasive. Certainly, the Sharon Tate murders may well have happened as described, but overall a good deal of cherry-picking is required, as you suggest. I was going to post on the John Lennon thread, but my response was not too much on topic, so I started collating material for a new thread relating to subjects I am familiar with. That would also be off-topic here, and since I haven’t read Mathis’s science papers (yet), all I can do at this juncture is to indicate a couple of red flags. NB: the following is entirely the case for the prosecution, so I would welcome any and all contradictory information.

I took a look at his art: mostly portraits and nudes; aesthetically pleasing and – I beg to differ with your overall appraisal of the man – totally conventional in facture. Someone who’s been through art college and is gifted enough to make a decent living doing commercial art as a day job. What I mean by conventional here is reliance on known formulas such as the Impressionist brushstroke. The Impressionists were outlawed from the mainstream when their original personal research took them in this direction. Where is Mathis’s original personal research taking him in some new direction? He can make cogent critiques of modern art but the bottom line is that he and others are operating the commercialization phase of art on the basis of other people’s non-mainstream R&D. That is not what I understand by art. It is a form of fakery, albeit different from art forgery per se, being limited to technique. The true artist confronts the artistic conventions of his day with his own soul and inevitably lays bare the conventions for what they are: pure hand-me-down views of reality, docilely maintaining a status quo. Miles Mathis’s output is in total contradiction with the pariah of art and science he claims to be. He can sell this stuff to anyone with the money to buy it without ruffling any feathers.

So this is not quite what I would have expected on the basis of his spare time writings, which include art criticism in addition to the science and conspiracy stuff. No wonder Miles Mathis is interested in real-life fakery. Taking just the science, the list of papers ends with this:

6,066 pp. total. 8/16/2015. This total page count was recently revised to reflect the large size of a PDF page, which is about 3 times larger than a standard book page.

Interesting number that, 6066... but he is actually boasting an output three times that size: over 18,000 pages! I checked a few articles: his ‘pages’ vary from 450 to 680 words. Since a publisher’s standard unformatted manuscript page (presumably what he is talking about) is 1500 characters and spaces, or slightly under 250 words, 3x is a slight exaggeration, but we are nevertheless approaching the 15,000 page mark, which is still extraordinarily prolific, and that is discounting all the other material. I am wondering where he finds the time. By way of comparison, my daughter’s doctoral thesis, representing ten years of near full-time research, weighs in at 1400 standard pages, including footnotes, extensive bibliography and plenty of illustrations. An equivalent thesis on a scientific subject will typically be 100-200 pages long.

On this count alone, I am forced to speculate as to whether ‘Miles Mathis’ is a single person at all, or whether the unevenness of his work is one sign of multiple authorship. I shall reserve for another thread my findings on Ezra Pound and James Joyce regarding his theory that everyone is basically an intelligence asset, but his slagging off of Rupert Sheldrake raises a similar red flag. No one seems to be for real, all cardboard cutouts, except for Miles Mathis. This is how he ends that particular hatchet job:

But since the media is now controlled at near 100%, I should have known Sheldrake was a fraud only because I was looking at him. Real people are no longer promoted: reality is not useful to the current custodians of culture. If you are in search of any reality, you have to take your tent to the edge of the wilderness, camping in the garden of some Abelard's hermitage.

The ‘edge of the wilderness’ is an odd concept to use to reject Sheldrake’s ‘non-material’ ‘neo-mysticism’: a real scientist might prefer to recommend a sensory deprivation tank. But even that is a little ambiguous, as the device was tested both by Richard Feynman and... John Lennon. And then to quote the theologian Abélard in a condemnation of mysticism is a real head-scratcher. He represents a special case of enforced solipsism: his main connection with other people, in the form of his lover/wife Héloïse, was severed, by the lady, and along with it his offending copulative organ, by some gentlemen. Their child, we read, was called Astrolabe, after the scientific instrument – wow! Regarding his teachings, we read:

Though his particular interpretations may have been condemned, they were conceived in essentially the same spirit as the general scheme of thought afterwards elaborated in the 13th century with approval from the heads of the Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Abelard

In other words, his teachings follow his life story: a fake/forced heretical outsider who is ultimately totally mainstream. What does this say about Miles Mathis, I wonder?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by araucaria (here)
I am wondering where he finds the time.

In roughly the five year span of 2010 to 2015, Miles has written some 1.9 million words in his physics articles. I downloaded all the articles on his physics website, THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS, and counted the words in all the html and (after converting them to text) the pdf files.

In roughly the same time span, I, Paul, have posted some 2.6 million words, in posts, here on Project Avalon, while engaging in various other activities, such as writing software, building computers and administering this site. I am well past my prime in terms of productivity however.

One cannot begin to compare the cost of different styles and kinds of writings. The cost in human time per word of a doctoral thesis is orders of magnitude higher than the cost per word of something that is written in pretty much one or two passes. If you read Miles' work, I expect that you will find that he writes quickly, with little editing. By the way, his style feels to me to be consistent across his work, suggesting a single author.

One also cannot begin to compare the productivity of the top most producers with even those close to them. While I was earning my mathematics degree, another student at the same school was earning a double major in Math and Physics. When it came time to write our theses, he wrote two, one per degree, as was required. However, he lost his math thesis, while writing his physics thesis. So, in the final two weeks before the deadline, this student rewrote his math thesis. He graduated ... in both majors. Oh - and he did all this in three years, while the rest of us were taking four years for one major (Well, I actually took four and a half, turning my thesis in late, and almost was not allowed to graduate at all.)

When I was in my prime, I was several times more productive than I am now. I have also had the pleasure of working with or nearby to others, a very few others, who were several times more productive than I ever was, even at my best, such as the above student, or such as Brendan Eich (creator of Javascript, Mozilla's Firefox, and now the Brave browser). Yes - such extraordinary productivity is quite possible, just not common.

Posted by araucaria (here)
In other words, his teachings follow his life story: a fake/forced heretical outsider who is ultimately totally mainstream. What does this say about Miles Mathis, I wonder?

What does this say about your critique, that you have made essentially no comment on the substance of his work?

(And, yes, I am well aware that if you do turn your fine mind to the substance of Miles' work, you will easily find material that is open to misunderstanding and ridicule. This is not "your father's physics.")

===

P.S. -- Consider also the productivity of such geniuses as Shakespeare or Mozart, or of seventeen of the most prolific authors in history.

When someone becomes highly productive in some form (as you take Miles to task for being productive with a paint brush), then one can be more limited by the speed of one's tools than by the speed of one's mind.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
There is an error in the equations, and we have figured it out, and now know how to travel to the stars, and it won't take a lifetime to do it.

So far as I know, nothing in the work of Miles Mathis suggests that faster than light travel or data transmission is possible.

He is (simply <grin>) presenting a unified physical, deterministic, almost mechanical like, model for matter, energy, light, electro-magnetic fields and gravity.

[Callista]

Dear Paul, I simply have no understanding of physics the way you do, and so there was no reasonable reason for my going to Miles Mathis' website, but I did.

That was 2 hours ago and I have only managed to tear myself away because I accidentally clicked the page shut.

There is a plethora of information in there, simply fascinating. Of course I am not meaning the physics side of things, but the papers about fakes and the beautiful artwork are threatening to take up a lot of my time if I am not careful.

So thank you for the link - I think...

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Callista (here)
That was 2 hours ago and I have only managed to tear myself away because I accidentally clicked the page shut.

Sometimes our higher self watches out for us in strange ways

[araucaria]

Thank you Paul – I always enjoy your biographical snippets

Posted by Paul (here)
Miles has written some 1.9 million words in his physics articles

So he’s only written 8,000 standard pages. That obviously answers my question regarding typing speed; and it makes my small sample of four documents 100% unrepresentative – a little odd, but okay. But it also magnifies my problem with his footnote: why has he more than doubled his claimed output? Not just roughly 6k triple-sized pages (which turn out to be only 1.33x standard pages), but exactly 6,066: what are those extra significant figures doing? This is pure rhetoric, fake precision not science, right there before we even start. Not an auspicious introduction. The kindest thing to be said is that there seems to be some confusion between quality and quantity.

Posted by Paul (here)
What does this say about your critique, that you have made essentially no comment on the substance of his work?

You posted 1.9 million words only this morning and you want a comment on the substance of his work? Let me answer in your own words of only yesterday:

Posted by Paul (here)
You're reminding me of some managers I've worked for when I was a computer programmer ... who needed the bug fixed, or feature working right NOW .

Just because the guy writes fast doesn’t make me a speed reader. I am not a scientist anyway, so I doubt if any objections I might raise would get a hearing – look at what happens when I point out a simple error of arithmetic. Also your announcing in advance “material that is open to misunderstanding and ridicule” is not likely to elicit much response. Being a writer, with a literary/arts background, I am particularly sensitive to issues I am most familiar with and qualified to speak about. I would not expect to be able to invalidate the scientific substance when it comes to things like equations. But his dismissal of Sheldrake, for example, is also substance – ideological substance – and I can and do refute that. I also commented on the substance of Mathis’s art work: I did not “take Miles to task for being productive with a paint brush”; I said his art is good but by no means ground-breaking, commercially viable, not unsaleable originality. And I shall start a thread addressing substantive issues with his treatment of certain writers. So no, within the above limits, I am not shying away from substance.

Form and substance form a whole: science writing is still writing as well as science when it departs from mathematical formulae. The formal issues arise from the very fact that, compared with the absolutely concise denotation of formulae, the rest is to a greater of lesser degree verbose, circumlocutory, connotational and metaphorical, wherein lie all kinds of traps.

Posted by Paul (here)
I expect that you will find that he writes quickly, with little editing. By the way, his style feels to me to be consistent across his work, suggesting a single author.

You are probably right. But, I took care to distinguish between parts of Mathis’s writing precisely in order not to generalize problems to his work as a whole. The alternative is the ‘curate’s egg’ nonsense whereby parts of a bad egg are supposedly delicious, as if that were possible. If we do have a single author, then we have the problem of separating the good info from the bad. I am simply saying that, for whatever reason, some of his info is not good, so please be careful about the rest. Having said that, a fast, easy writing style is probably the simplest for a team to imitate consistently. Mike, who once said he could imitate the posts of many forum members, admitted that he probably couldn’t copy my turgid prose (my adjective ), or at least would have a harder time of it.

[lake]

Thanks Paul
I haven't read a great deal but that which I have is very interesting!
Even down to Pi=4 when movement is a vector.
http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf
good stuff.......interesting as thought experiments.
I rather enjoyed reading his 'rant' regarding the science super heroes come to save humanity!

They have raped the Earth and they are raping us, openly and with evermore abandon. And they are
doing it because they have seen that they can. When they stole a penny, we looked away, so they stole
a nickel. When they stole a dime, we looked away, so they stole a dollar. It is the theft that has become
“exponential” in the last two decades, and we are all accomplices in that theft, since we continue to
look away. No, it is even worse than that, because many of us don't look away, we vote for these
people and idolize them and give them prizes and buy their books and watch them on television. We
fall to this pathetic propaganda like ignorant children. We think we are masters of the universe, but we
can't even manage the self-control to get up and turn the television off, or to cancel the subscription to
the magazine.
But that hardly matters, since majorities never did anything in history and still don't.

http://milesmathis.com/hawking.pdf

Star Trek Force Field

This shield is an “extremely sharp” boundary at the inner edge of the outer Van Allen belt at roughly 7,200 miles
in altitude that appears to block the ultrafast electrons from breeching the shield and moving
deeper towards Earth’s atmosphere.“
It’s almost like theses electrons are running into a glass wall
in space,” said Baker, the study’s lead author. “Somewhat like the shields created by force felds
on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these
electrons. It’s an extremely puzzling phenomenon.

http://milesmathis.com/startrek.pdf

Wonder if this is the same type of field which Carmody alludes to here:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ound-the-Earth

Researchers prove existence of anti-proton radiation belt around Earth

Italian researchers using data from the satellite PAMELA have proven that theories showing there ought to be a ring of antiprotons encircling the Earth due to cosmic rays colliding with nuclei in the upper atmosphere are correct.

Just wondering?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by araucaria (here)
So he’s only written 8,000 standard pages. That obviously answers my question regarding typing speed; and it makes my small sample of four documents 100% unrepresentative – a little odd, but okay. But it also magnifies my problem with his footnote: why has he more than doubled his claimed output? Not just roughly 6k triple-sized pages (which turn out to be only 1.33x standard pages), but exactly 6,066: what are those extra significant figures doing? This is pure rhetoric, fake precision not science, right there before we even start. Not an auspicious introduction. The kindest thing to be said is that there seems to be some confusion between quality and quantity.

Most such calculations of how many words, pages, documents, lines of code, etc ... are in a body of work are specific calculations, with specific numbers, obtained from using crude heuristics as to what to count. This includes your calculations, with which you introduced your effort to slander Mathis without substantive basis.

Mathis did not make any overly precise calculations or deductions from this specific numbers. Therefore your accusation that by his simply stating these particular number(s) he is engaging in pure rhetoric and fake precision is not an auspicious characterization on your part.

The kindest thing to be said is that seems to be some confusion between substantive criticism, and ordorous slander.

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
What does this say about your critique, that you have made essentially no comment on the substance of his work?

You posted 1.9 million words only this morning and you want a comment on the substance of his work? Let me answer in your own words of only yesterday:

Posted by Paul (here)
You're reminding me of some managers I've worked for when I was a computer programmer ... who needed the bug fixed, or feature working right NOW .

Just because the guy writes fast doesn’t make me a speed reader. I am not a scientist anyway, so I doubt if any objections I might raise would get a hearing – look at what happens when I point out a simple error of arithmetic. Also your announcing in advance “material that is open to misunderstanding and ridicule” is not likely to elicit much response. Being a writer, with a literary/arts background, I am particularly sensitive to issues I am most familiar with and qualified to speak about. I would not expect to be able to invalidate the scientific substance when it comes to things like equations.

Had you been reading my words with the intention to understand what I wrote, not with (apparently) the intention to dispute Mathis and anyone recommending Mathis, it should have been obvious to you that I did not expect a substantive comment on the contents of Miles Mathis physics today from anyone today. Not even I can do that yet, in any detail, after struggling to read his physics for a couple of years.

What I did hope was that no one would blast Miles Mathis with such ill founded slander as the following, based on little more than doubts that such a large amount of written work was unlikely from a single individual, that he was guilty of not rounding off a precise number obtained by rough heuristic measures, and that some of his writings on other topics could be cast in a very dubious light:

Posted by araucaria
In other words, his teachings follow his life story: a fake/forced heretical outsider who is ultimately totally mainstream. What does this say about Miles Mathis, I wonder?

[araucaria]

I shall withdraw from this discussion right here. I have never been accused of slander before. Coming from the forum administrator no less, I shall have to reconsider my membership here.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by araucaria (here)
I shall withdraw from this discussion right here. I have never been accused of slander before. Coming from the forum administrator no less, I shall have to reconsider my membership here.

I certainly hope you don't withdraw from the forum. Your contributions here are sustained and substantial (and I've no doubt several members and modertors would be on my case, if I caused you to withdraw.)

I don't recall you speaking of someone in the past, the way you were of Miles Mathis here, so I see good reason why no one labeled any of your previous substantial comments and analysis slanderous.

[araucaria]

There is nothing slanderous in what I wrote, Paul: deal with it. The last person you defended like this was Shane. I was one of the few who never had a go at Shane. I have not changed. I have merely pointed out certain 'anomalies' (to quote the word used back then) in Mathis's work. I am sorry I am not on first name terms with 'Miles', but some of the things he writes simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

I am perfectly serious about withdrawing from the forum. There are also certain anomalies regarding the forum's output of late. If I stay around, it will be because I can help to fix them. I need to work out whether or not I can do that.

[greybeard]

Come on guys--
No need to get technical about miss understandings.
I dont always understand what you are saying Araucaria--being dyslexic, longish posts a challenge but what I get is quality from you.
Same with Paul--you are both an asset to the forum.

Chris

[Sierra]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Come on guys--
No need to get technical about miss understandings.
I dont always understand what you are saying Araucaria--being dyslexic, longish posts a challenge but what I get is quality from you.
Same with Paul--you are both an asset to the forum.

Chris

Hear, hear. I highly respect both Araucaria, and Paul.

[RunningDeer]

Glad you’re hanging around John/araucaria.

Much respect for both John and Paul. Great minds. Different from mine. You both help to fill in the gaps. For me, it's another example of strange energy spikes over these last couple of weeks.

I’ve noticed these spikes within myself, too. I’ve chosen to nix my usual hours and hours of study. I’m a slug. Weird sleep patterns over the course of the day and night. Metamorphosis happening. My sense is it’s a good thing.

Posted by araucaria (here)
If I stay around, it will be because I can help to fix them. I need to work out whether or not I can do that.

Posted by Paul (here)
I certainly hope you don't withdraw from the forum. Your contributions here are sustained and substantial

[Flash]

I agree with all below. I love reading you, you are bringing a lot to me, at a minimum. And fixing what if off with the forum at the present. Wait.... there is some sun storms coming on us, wait that it goes by before deciding

Also, Americans are particularly hit in their energies at the present time. This propagandist crooked election takes a hold on all of them (it does on me and I am not directly effected), independent of what they believe and want. They are in personal inner crisis at seeing the dirt coming out, and public crisis as well. They love their torn apart country with true highly emotional involvement. And their strong value system is hit full force. This could mean from them less patience and maybe less clear mind for a little while.

Time may fix things, given the actual situation.

I would not make a fuss over misunderstandings at the present moment.

I love both input Paul and John. You are both very bright people -

John, I do understand what you write most of the time (sometimes through rereading), you are a very educated and intelligent writer, both in form and content. I truly treasure your input. And I think the forum needs such a balance approach, as you usually have.

Posted by RunningDeer (here)
Glad you’re hanging around John/araucaria.

Much respect for both John and Paul. Great minds. Different from mine. You both help to fill in the gaps. For me, it's another example of strange energy spikes over these last couple of weeks.

I’ve noticed these spikes within myself, too. I’ve chosen to nix my usual hours and hours of study. I’m a slug. Weird sleep patterns over the course of the day and night. Metamorphosis happening. My sense is it’s a good thing.

One recent example of my spiny senses working overtime was I saw/thought of Avocadess briefly returning, two days before she popped up on the forum after what? Three years? This tells me that our manifestations now happen at a quickened pace. I'm holding to a conscious effort not to engage in the short fuses popping up in my personal and virtual life(s).

Posted by araucaria (here)
If I stay around, it will be because I can help to fix them. I need to work out whether or not I can do that.

Posted by Paul (here)
I certainly hope you don't withdraw from the forum. Your contributions here are sustained and substantial

[halcyon026]

Here's some explanations of what Light is. He has a bit of arrogance that takes away from it, but still good IMO.

He explains why nothing emits light and light doesn't have a speed. He also explains Aethers role in this.

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CCrnDGOl2xA

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1QZzVoMvfh8

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by halcyon026 (here)
Here's some explanations of what Light is. He has a bit of arrogance that takes away from it, but still good IMO.

He explains why nothing emits light and light doesn't have a speed. He also explains Aethers role in this.

A camel jockey in the Sahara, and an assembly worker in an iPhone factory in Shanghai both have something in common -- neither is a rancher in Wyoming, US.

This man, apparently named Theoria Apophasis, and Miles Mathis both have something in common -- neither has much respect for present day main stream physics.

But Theoria Apophasis, and Miles Mathis seem to be about as far from each other otherwise as they can be.

From what I can tell so far, based on a very incomplete reading, Miles reduces matter and the "fields" and "forces" of conventional physics to photons (light), spinning and moving.

Theoria Apophasis, based on my even more incomplete listening of a few minutes, reduces all to an ether, saying there is no such thing as light (photons).

I am starting to "get" Miles physics ... which isn't to say that I won't dismiss him as wrong sometime in the future ... but Miles looks to be on to some good insights, in my present view.

I don't "get" Theoria ... not even close ... at least not at present. I hear and agree with his disdain for main stream physics, but I don't hear much in the way of a coherent and substantial alternative ... just a few bits and pieces, carelessly assembled. Perhaps if I had listened further, I would have heard more ... but I didn't get that far.

[ThePythonicCow]

Skipping to about 4:26 in the second video, Theoria Apophasis says:

I am the first person to tell accurately you what light is. It's a coaxial circuit. It's not merely transverse electrical magnetic. It has a longitudinal dialectric. And Mother Nature, she's a really, really simple gal. OK, she's not an insane hooker on crack, as quantum-mechanics would have you believe. She only understands two core principles: force in motion, and inertia and acceleration. The entire universe is resistance, capacitance, permeability (magnetism), permetivity (dialectricity).

This is an entirely different sort of physics than Miles Mathis is exploring. Miles endeavors to base his physics on local, physical, mechanical, substance(s) and its behaviour. Theoria apparently is basing his physics on field properties familiar to electrical engineers.

The two are totally different in both their approach, and in how far they have gotten so far in their efforts. I doubt that I will ever "get", or even listen to, Theoria Apophasis, any more. Sorry .